CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 85Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Multi-Agent Collaboration: Harnessing the Power of Intelligent LLM Agents

Open access
Talebirad, Yashar, Nadiri, Amirhossein·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.03314arXiv 2306.03314
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we present a novel framework for enhancing the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by leveraging the power of multi-agent systems. Our framework introduces a collaborative environment where multiple intelligent agent components, each with distinctive attributes and roles, work together to handle complex tasks more efficiently and effectively. We demonstrate the practicality and versatility of our framework through case studies in artificial general intelligence (AGI), specifically focusing on the Auto-GPT and BabyAGI models. We also examine the "Gorilla" model, which integrates external APIs into the LLM. Our framework addresses limitations and challenges such as looping issues, security risks, scalability, system evaluation, and ethical considerations. By modeling various domains such as courtroom simulations and software development scenarios, we showcase the potential applications and benefits of our proposed multi-agent system. Our framework provides an avenue for advancing the capabilities and performance of LLMs through collaboration and knowledge exchange among intelligent agents.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.03314

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Multi-agent systems demonstrate advanced problem-solving skills, autonomy and versatility.

    “Systems utilizing multiple agents or multi-agent systems is a recent development with researchers exploring and developing frameworks for multi-agent collaborations (Liu et al. 2023b ; Talebirad and Nadiri 2023 ), demonstrating advanced problem-solving skills, autonomy and versatility.”

    From A review of LLMs and their applications in the architecture, engineering and construction industry (2025) · cites this paper as Talebirad and Nadiri 2023

    The Introduction describes autonomous agents and proposes a flexible system capable of solving more complex problems. Section 4 discusses the framework’s versatility across potential applications, but frames improved performance and the case studies as aims or possibilities rather than demonstrated advanced problem-solving results. The citing sentence overstates what this source establishes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • LLMs primarily function as reactive prompt followers, whereas AI Agents operate automatically within explicitly defined scopes, engaging dynamically with inputs and producing actionable outputs in real-time environments.

    “While LLMs primarily function as reactive prompt followers [61], AI Agents operate automatically within explicitly defined scopes, engaging dynamically with inputs and producing actionable outputs in real-time environments [62].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

    Citation [62] attaches to the AI-agent clause, not the preceding characterization of LLMs. Section 3.2 says agents can operate independently within defined roles and adapt to changing workloads; Sections 2 and 3.1 describe them exchanging information, performing tasks, and responding to users. The copy does not establish that they produce actionable outputs in real-time environments. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Evaluating multi-agent collaboration in LLM-based systems requires different methodologies compared to traditional reinforcement learning-driven coordination.

    “Evaluating multi-agent collaboration in LLM-based systems requires different methodologies compared to traditional reinforcement learning-driven coordination [7, 48, 89].”

    From Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [89]

    Section 5.3 (System Evaluation; page unavailable) says traditional evaluation metrics might be insufficient for the multi-agent system and that new metrics and methodologies might be needed. It does not compare LLM-based collaboration with reinforcement learning-driven coordination, and it presents the need for different methods as a possibility rather than a requirement. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI Agents operate automatically within explicitly defined scopes, engaging dynamically with inputs and producing actionable outputs in real-time environments, while LLMs primarily function as reactive prompt followers.

    “While LLMs primarily function as reactive prompt followers [63], AI Agents operate automatically within explicitly defined scopes, engaging dynamically with inputs and producing actionable outputs in real-time environments [64].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [64]

    Section 3.1 (page unavailable) describes well-defined agents with specific permissions that exchange information and work toward a common goal; Section 3.2 describes agent autonomy within a designer-defined framework. These passages support much of the description attributed to [64], but the paper does not establish that agents generally produce actionable outputs in real-time environments. The separate characterization of LLMs is attached to [63], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Even the most advanced multi-agent frameworks today often depend on handcrafted workflows, fixed communication protocols, and human-curated toolchains.

    “Yet, even the most advanced multi-agent frameworks today often depend on handcrafted workflows, fixed communication protocols, and human-curated toolchains (Talebirad and Nadiri, 2023; Zhao et al., 2024; Luo et al., 2025a; Tran et al., 2025).”

    From A Comprehensive Survey of Self-Evolving AI Agents: A New Paradigm Bridging Foundation Models and Lifelong Agentic Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Talebirad and Nadiri, 2023

    Section 3.1 (System Design; page unavailable) describes a designer selecting agents and plugins, assigning roles, and establishing communication connections. Section 2.3 (Connection and Message Representation; page unavailable) specifies a message format. These passages support the claim that this proposed framework has designed components, but they do not establish that advanced multi-agent frameworks generally depend on fixed protocols or human-curated toolchains; Section 3.2 also emphasizes agents’ ability to adapt within the initial design. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Talebirad, Y., & Nadiri, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • York University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.03314
arXiv
2306.03314
OpenAlex
W4379919478
Cited by
65
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 21
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
multi-agent systems, large language models, LLM agents, agent cooperation, artificial general intelligence, security risks, scalability, ethical considerations, software development

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