The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms
Abstract
Many researchers have demonstrated that the organizational design employed by an agent system can have a significant, quantitative effect on its performance characteristics. A range of organizational strategies have emerged from this line of research, each with different strengths and weaknesses. In this article we present a survey of the major organizational paradigms used in multi-agent systems. These include hierarchies, holarchies, coalitions, teams, congregations, societies, federations, markets, and matrix organizations. We will provide a description of each, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and provide examples of how they may be instantiated and maintained. This summary will facilitate the comparative evaluation of organizational styles, allowing designers to first recognize the spectrum of possibilities, and then guiding the selection of an appropriate organizational design for a particular domain and environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Classical organizational MAS models describe agents in terms of roles, authority, norms, and institutional structures, rather than only pairwise interaction rules (Ferber et al., 2003;Horling and Lesser, 2004;Hannoun et al., 2000;Hübner et al., 2007).”
From Organizational Control Layer: Governance Infrastructure at the Execution Boundary of LLM Agent Systems (2026) · cites this paper as Horling and Lesser, 2004
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
COUNTERSPECULATION, AUCTIONS, AND COMPETITIVE SEALED TENDERS
Vickrey, W. (1961) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.x · Cited by 7,722
Grosz, B. J., & Kraus, S. (1999) · Applied Logic Series · doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9204-8_10 · Cited by 177 · cited 2×
“…based on the joint intentions framework ( Levesque et al ., 1990), which formally defines how agents should reason over joint commitments and shared goals , and SharedPlans theory ( Grosz & Kraus , 1999), which provides a formal way to encode and reason about joint plans , intentions and beliefs .”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Transparency: Motivations and Challenges
Weller, A. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_2 · Cited by 198
Open Problems in Cooperative AI
Dafoe, A., Hughes, E., Bachrach, Y., Collins, T., McKee, K. R., Leibo, J. Z., Larson, K., & Graepel, T. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.08630 · Cited by 93
(2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 86
Autonomous Task Planning Method for Multi-Satellite System Based on a Hybrid Genetic Algorithm
Long, J., Wu, S., Han, X., Wang, Y., & Liu, L. (2023) · Aerospace · doi:10.3390/aerospace10010070 · Cited by 39
Shi, T., Mo, Y., Liu, Y., Hao, Z., Wang, Y., Hu, W., Yu, N., Zhou, M., & Yu, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.04306 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- HORLING, B., & LESSER, V.
- Venue
- The Knowledge Engineering Review
- Publisher
- Maximum Academic Press
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 281-316
- ISSN
- 0269-8889 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8005
- OpenAlex
- W2039048406
- Cited by
- 709
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
