The DOI matches its DataCite record; 85 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 6 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Multi-agent Architecture Search via Agentic Supernet
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Model (LLM)-empowered multi-agent systems extend the cognitive boundaries of individual agents through disciplined collaboration and interaction, while constructing these systems often requires labor-intensive manual designs. Despite the availability of methods to automate the design of agentic workflows, they typically seek to identify a static, complex, one-size-fits-all system, which, however, fails to dynamically allocate inference resources based on the difficulty and domain of each query. To address this challenge, we shift away from the pursuit of a monolithic agentic system, instead optimizing the \textbf{agentic supernet}, a probabilistic and continuous distribution of agentic architectures. We introduce MaAS, an automated framework that samples query-dependent agentic systems from the supernet, delivering high-quality solutions and tailored resource allocation (\textit{e.g.}, LLM calls, tool calls, token cost). Comprehensive evaluation across six benchmarks demonstrates that MaAS \textbf{(I)} requires only $6\sim45\%$ of the inference costs of existing handcrafted or automated multi-agent systems, \textbf{(II)} surpasses them by $0.54\%\sim11.82\%$, and \textbf{(III)} enjoys superior cross-dataset and cross-LLM-backbone transferability.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
MaAS reframes automated multi-agent design as optimizing an “agentic supernet,” a probabilistic distribution over agentic architectures, and samples query-dependent systems at inference. Across six benchmarks it improves accuracy over handcrafted and automated baselines while using substantially fewer tokens and lower cost.
Key findings
- MaAS achieves the best average on GSM8K, MATH, MultiArith, HumanEval, and MBPP: 83.59 average, with gains over baselines of 0.54%–16.89%; e.g., MATH 51.82 vs. AFlow 51.28, HumanEval 92.85 vs. AFlow 90.93, MBPP 82.17 vs. AFlow 81.67.
- On GAIA, MaAS reaches 20.69 average vs. AFlow 8.00, AgentSquare 16.34, and GPTSwarm 16.33; Level 1 25.91, Level 2 22.01, Level 3 6.25.
- On MATH, MaAS uses $3.38 training cost vs. AFlow’s $22.50, $0.42 inference cost vs. AFlow’s $1.66, 53 min training wall-clock vs. AFlow’s 184 min and DyLAN’s 508 min, and 19 min inference wall-clock.
- Ablation: removing the textual gradient drops HumanEval from 92.85 to 90.17 and MATH from 51.82 to 48.23; removing early exit raises HumanEval cost from 1.01 to 1.67 and MATH cost from 0.86 to 1.04 (10^-3 $).
Methods
- Search space: agentic operators such as CoT, LLM-Debate, Self-Consistency, Self-Refine, Ensemble, Testing, ReAct, and early exit; a multi-agent system is a DAG, and the agentic supernet is an L-layer probabilistic distribution over operators. A controller network samples query-dependent architectures using MoE-style activation scores with threshold thres = 0.3 and an early-exit operator.
- Optimization: cost-constrained objective with trade-off λ; distribution π is updated via empirical Bayes Monte Carlo gradient with cost-aware importance weights, while operators are updated via agent-based textual gradient for prompts, temperature, and node structure. Settings include L = 4, K = 4, and λ ∈ {1e-3, 5e-3, 1e-2}.
- Evaluation: six public benchmarks—GSM8K, MATH, MultiArith, HumanEval, MBPP, and GAIA—with a 1:4 train:test split; MATH uses 617 selected problems. Base LLM is gpt-4o-mini, with Qwen-2.5-72b/70b and llama-3.1-70b for transfer tests; baselines include CoT, ComplexCoT, Self-Consistency, MultiPersona, LLM-Debate, LLM-Blender, DyLAN, AgentVerse, MacNet, AutoAgents, GPTSwarm, ADAS, AgentSquare, and AFlow.
Limitations
- Stated limitations: Not stated in the paper; the ethical statement says the framework raises no ethical concerns.
- Evident: the operator repository is manually initialized and customizable, so search quality depends on the chosen operators; the textual gradient component is adapted from ADAS and AgentSquare and relies on LLM-generated textual updates.
- Evident: evaluation covers six benchmarks and a limited set of LLM backbones; the text inconsistently says “six” and “seven” benchmarks and lists SVAMP in the introduction but MultiArith in the experiments, which may affect reproducibility and generalization claims.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
24 Own result · 6 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given · 2 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Partly supported · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“for instance, in the GAIA benchmark (Mialon et al., 2023), there is no single system that is optimal for both fi le reading and web searching tasks, leaving practitioners with no alternative but to split the benchmark and optimize separately (Zhuge et al., 2024).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Mialon et al., 2023 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the GPT4 plugins discussion (page unavailable), the paper says evaluators had to choose between a file-reading mode and third-party plugins selected for each task. Figure 5 compares scores by capability, but the text does not establish that no single system is optimal for both file-reading and web-searching tasks. The recommendation to split the benchmark is attributed to Zhuge et al., not this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Could not verifycites Zhuge et al., 2024 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.4 (GAIA; page unavailable) reports overall benchmark accuracy for systems using different tools, including WebSearch and FileAnalyzer. It does not report which system performs best on file-reading tasks versus web-search tasks, so our copy cannot establish that no single system is optimal for both. Searches for that comparison and for separate optimization found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the more challenging queries (c) and (d), MaAS sampled additional layers”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MaAS achieves an average best score of 83 . 59% , demonstrating its versatility and superiority.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“removing the textual gradient causes the largest performance drop”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the agentic supernet optimized by MaAS transfers well to models such as Qwen-2.5-70b , with 4 . 98% ∼ 5 . 50% ↑ in performance”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Obs. ❶ MaAS achieves optimal performance across all task domains.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“surpassing existing handcrafted or automated multi-agent systems by 0 . 54% ∼ 16 . 89%”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Obs. ❹ MaAS learns to query-aware early exit from the reasoning process.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“when faced with the easy queries (a) and (b), MaAS exits multi-agent architecture sampling at the second layer with probabilities of 0 . 37 and 0 . 47 , respectively, selecting the early-exit operator.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“❹ inductive , demonstrating strong generalizability to unseen agentic operators.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MaAS learns to avoid overly confident early stopping and instead prioritizes testing and self-refinement in deeper layers.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“query (b) chose two agentic operators at the first layer: direct I/O and ReAct”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DyLAN taking 508 minutes and GPTSwarm taking 129 minutes. In contrast, the optimization wall-clock time of MaAS requires only 53 minutes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The multi-agent system optimized by MaAS outperforms manually designed methods by an average of 3 . 90 ∼ 6 . 40% and existing automated methods by 2 . 07 ∼ 8 . 26% .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MaAS achieves the highest accuracy with an API cost of 0 . 42$ , demonstrating its high performance and token economy.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Removing O exit and C ( · ) results in little impact on performance, but it weakens MaAS's query-dependent nature and unnecessarily increases the inference cost.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“❸ transferable across datasets and LLM-backbones”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“among the various optimization-oriented agentic workflows, MaAS achieves the highest accuracy with the least training token consumption.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MaAS has the lowest prompt/completion token consumption, the lowest API cost, and the shortest wall-clock time during inference.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we demonstrate that MaAS is both training/inference cost-efficient from the following three dimensions”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“❷ tokeneconomical , outperforming the SOTA baseline AFlow on the MATH benchmark with 15% of the training cost and 25% of the inference cost”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MaAS can adaptively sample customized agentic systems for different domains, achieving 18 . 38% and 17 . 61% improvements on Level 1 and 2 tasks, respectively.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We respectfully note that the selection of these operators is highly customizable, allowing users the flexibility to incorporate their desired operators into the operator repository of MaAS.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We introduce the early exit operator, which interrupts the multi-agent architecture sampling process and enables the depth of the agentic supernet to be query-dependent.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“LLM-Debate (Du et al., 2023) allows multiple LLMs to debate, leveraging diverse perspectives to identify better solutions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Du et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“CoT (Wei et al., 2022) reasoning encourages the LLM to think step by step rather than directly outputting an answer.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wei et al., 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Following (Yao et al., 2023), this operator enables the agent to leverage versatile tools, including code interpreter, web searching, external knowledge database, etc. , to handle diverse user demands.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yao et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach enables fine-grained resource allocation tailored to query difficulty and domain, significantly improving efficiency while maintaining high-quality outputs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ph.D.-level abstract algebra may indeed require complicated, token-heavy systems, while simple elementary-level arithmetic works well with a single zero-shot I/O.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This approach enhances its capability to solve complex problems through intermediate reasoning steps, improving task handling and providing greater transparency in the decision-making process.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wei et al., 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MaAS introduces a new paradigm in multi-agent system design by replacing static, one-sizefits-all architectures with a dynamic and adaptive agentic supernet.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
The difficulty and domain of a query can be captured by the controller network from the query embedding to select an appropriate multi-agent architecture.
“The core of MaAS lies in tailoring a customized multi-agent system for each user query, which may vary in difficulty and domain, to deliver a satisfactory solution”
The paper relies on this without support.
Token cost adequately represents the inference cost of a multi-agent system.
“C ( · ) evaluates the cost of multi-agent systems, represented by token cost”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“While AFlow's accuracy is comparable to that of MaAS, its training cost reaches 22 . 50$ , which is 6 . 8 × that of MaAS (merely 3 . 38$ ).”
Reported 6.8 · recomputed 6.656805
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| AFlow (Zhang et al., 2024c) | 91 . 16 ↑ 3 . 71 | 51 . 28 ↑ 4 . 91 | 96 . 22 ↓ 0 . 63 | 90 . 93 ↑ 3 . 85 | 81 . 67 ↑ 9 . 84 | 82 . 25 |”
Reported 4.91 · recomputed 4.99
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 1. Introduction · p. 2
“We conduct comprehensive evaluations on seven widely adopted benchmarks, covering diverse use cases in code generation (HumanEval, MBPP), mathematical reasoning (GSM8K, MATH, SVAMP), and diverse tool usage (GAIA).”
§ 4.1. Experiment Setup · p. 5
“Weevaluate MaAS on six public benchmarks covering three domains: (1) math reasoning , GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), MATH (Hendrycks et al., 2021), and MultiArith (Roy & Roth, 2016)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4.3. Cost Analysis · p. 7
“Table 3 further highlights that MaAS has the lowest prompt/completion token consumption, the lowest API cost, and the shortest wall-clock time during inference.”
§ 4.3. Cost Analysis · p. 7
“| GPTSwarm | 21 , 325 , 266 | 6 , 369 , 884 | 7 . 02$ | 129 | 3 , 105 , 571 | 788 , 273 | 0 . 93$ | 30 | 47 . 88 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 2. Related Work · p. 4
“Similarly, P and T represent prompts and tools. m and n denote the number of LLM-agents and tools invoked in the operator, respectively.”
§ A. Notations · p. 13
“| T | The temperature setting of the LLM. |”
Citations
Cites
Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks
Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1410 · Cited by 12,778 · cited 1×
“S is given by: ) , where v ( · ) denotes the embedding function using lightweight models like MiniLM (Wang et al., 2020) and Sentence-Bert (Reimers, 2019), and ∥ represents concatenation.”
Neural Architecture Search with Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Zoph, B., & Le, Q. V. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01578 · Cited by 5,705 · cited 1×
“Core NAS techniques, such as reinforcement learning (Zoph, 2016), evolutionary algorithms (Liu et al., 2021), Bayesian optimization (BO) (White et al., 2021), and MCTS (Wang et al., 2021), have inspired analogous approaches in agentic automation, from policy gradient in (Zhuge et al., 2024) to…”
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · cited 4×
“Most existing single/multi-agent workflows can be viewed as agentic operators: CoT (Wei et al., 2022) can be considered one with m = 1 and n = 0 , denoted as O CoT ; Self-RAG (Asai et al., 2023) similarly involves m = 1 agent allocation, but is equipped with n = 1 retrieval engine, denoted as O…”
InfluentialSelf-citationDARTS: Differentiable architecture search
Liu, H., Simonyan, K., & Yang, Y. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.09055 · Cited by 3,248 · cited 1×
“In NAS, however, these black-box methods were eventually eclipsed by efficient su-pernet training (White et al., 2023), culminating in seminal works like DARTS (Liu et al., 2018) and SNAS (Xie et al., 2018).”
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651 · Cited by 2,314 · cited 1×
“Following Madaan et al. (2023), this operator initially generates an answer using CoT reasoning, then prompts the agent to self-reflect iteratively.”
A survey on large language model based autonomous agents
Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Chen, X., Lin, Y., et al. (2024) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1 · Cited by 1,941 · cited 4×
“Efforts to automate the design of agent-based systems can be broadly classified into the following categories: (I) Prompt Optimization , such as PromptBreeder (Fernando et al., 2023), DsPy (Khattab et al., 2023), and EvoPrompt (Guo et al., 2023); (II) Inter-agent Communication , which focuses on orchestrating interact…”
InfluentialAutoML: A survey of the state-of-the-art
He, X. J., Zhao, K., & Chu, X. (2020) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106622 · Cited by 1,912 · cited 2×
“AutoML.”
Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate
Du, Y., Li, S., Torralba, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Mordatch, I. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14325 · Cited by 1,202 · cited 12×
“The agentic supernet can be seen as a cascaded multi-layer workflow, including ❶ multiple agentic operators ( e.g. , CoT (Wei et al., 2022), Multi-agent Debate (Du et al., 2023), ReAct (Yao et al., 2023)), as well as ❷ the parameterized probability distributions of operators across layers.”
InfluentialReflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning
Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Berman, E., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11366 · Cited by 1,087
Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer
Shazeer, N., Mirhoseini, A., Maziarz, K., Davis, A., Le, Q., Hinton, G., & Dean, J. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.06538 · Cited by 933 · cited 1×
“We implement the sampling process π ϕ with a Mixture-of-Expert (MoE)-style network (Shazeer et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2024): where S ↓ = sort( S , desc ) , and represents the activation scores of all feasible operators w.r.t. q .”
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, H., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., Ray, A., Puri, R., Krueger, G., Petrov, M., Khlaaf, H., Sastry, G., Mishkin, P., Chan, B., Gray, S., Ryder, N., Pavlov, M., Power, A., Kaiser, L., Bavarian, M., Winter, C., Tillet, P., Petroski Such, F., Cummings, D., Plappert, M., Chantzis, F., Barnes, E., Herbert-Voss, A., Hebgen Guss, W., Nichol, A., Paino, A., Tezak, N., Tang, J., Babuschkin, I., Balaji, S., Jain, S., Saunders, W., Hesse, C., Carr, A. N., Leike, J., Achiam, J., Misra, V., Morikawa, E., Radford, A., Knight, M., Brundage, M., Murati, M., Mayer, K., Welinder, P., McGrew, B., Amodei, D., McCandlish, S., Sutskever, I., and Zaremba, W. Evaluating large language models trained on code, July 01, 2021 2021.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large Language Models Meet NLP: A Survey
Qin, L.-B., Chen, Q., Feng, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, Y.-H., Li, M., Che, W.-X., & Yu, P. S. (2024) · Frontiers Comput. Sci. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.12819 · Cited by 191
AgenTracer: Who Is Inducing Failure in the LLM Agentic Systems?Preprint
Zhang, G.-M., Wang, J., Chen, J., Zhou, W., Wang, K., & Yan, S.-C. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.03312 · Cited by 145
“1, CRITIC consistently degrades performance ( e.g. , CRITIC+MaAS+GAIA accuracy drops by − 4 .”
Self-citationOn the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agents
Huang, J.-T., Zhou, J., Jin, T., Zhou, X., Chen, Z., Wang, W., Yuan, Y., Lyu, M. R., & Sap, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.00989 · Cited by 1
G-Memory: Tracing Hierarchical Memory for Multi-Agent Systems
Zhang, G.-M., Fu, M., Wan, G.-C., Yu, M., Wang, K., & Yan, S.-C. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.07398 · Cited by 124
“More recent automated MASs, such as GPTSwarm [47], ADAS [48], AFlow [49], and MaAS [50] have made it to automatically optimize inter-agent topologies or prompts, which, nevertheless, ultimately yield giant and cumbersome MAS architectures, lacking the agility to self-adjust with accumulated…”
Self-citationMemEvolve: Meta-Evolution of Agent Memory SystemsPreprint
Zhang, G., Ren, H., Zhan, C., Zhou, Z., Wang, J., Zhu, H., Zhou, W., & Yan, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.18746 · Cited by 108
“Storage can be vector databases (Zhao et al., 2024), knowledge graphs (Zhang et al., 2025b; Rasmussen et al., 2025), or others.”
InfluentialSelf-citationWang, Z., Wang, Y., Liu, X.-B., Ding, L., Zhang, M., Liu, J., & Zhang, M. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.18891 · Cited by 66
“Recently, researchers have also explored approaches that automatically generate suitable topologies for specific tasks to enhance the performance and efficiency of MAS, such as G-Designer (Zhang et al., 2024a) and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025b).”
FLEX: Continuous Agent Evolution via Forward Learning from ExperiencePreprint
Cai, Z., Guo, X., Pei, Y., Feng, J., Su, J., Chen, J., Zhang, Y.-Q., Ma, W.-Y., Wang, M., & Zhou, H. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.06449 · Cited by 59
“Another line emphasizes agents architecture evolution, such as CAMEL [114], MetaGPT [115], AgentSquare [26], MaAS [25], AutoFlow [116], and GPTSwarm [117], which orchestra multiple agents for cooperative problem solving.”
EvoAgentX: An Automated Framework for Evolving Agentic Workflows
Wang, Y., Liu, S., Fang, J., & Meng, Z. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.03616 · Cited by 52
“Recent work has further unified prompt and topology optimization, as in ADAS (Hu et al., 2024), FlowReasoner (Gao et al., 2025), and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025b), which jointly optimize agent configurations, prompts, and execution graphs using meta-search, reinforcement learning, or probabilistic…”
Self-citationAGENTSAFE: Benchmarking the Safety of Embodied Agents on Hazardous InstructionsPreprint
Ying, Z., Wang, L., Xiao, Y., Wang, J., Ma, Y., Guo, J., Yin, Z., Zhang, M., Liu, A., & Liu, X. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14697 · Cited by 39
ReSo: A Reward-driven Self-organizing LLM-based Multi-Agent System for Reasoning Tasks
Zhou, H., Geng, H.-J., Xue, X., Kang, L., Yin, Z.-F., & Bai, L. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.02390 · Cited by 39
“A THRESHOLD = 0.6 establishes the similarity cutoff for specialized handling of certain subproblems, while EXPLORATION_CONST = 0.3 encourages periodic assignments to underutilized agents.”
InfluentialSelf-citationWe Should Identify and Mitigate Third-Party Safety Risks in MCP-Powered Agent SystemsPreprint
Fang, J., Yao, Z., Wang, R., Ma, H., Xiang, W., & Chua, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.13666 · Cited by 31
“LLM-based agentic systems [23, 106, 83, 98, 97, 96] significantly enhance complex reasoning and problem-solving capabilities through the integration of specialized tools [66, 71, 87, 67], memory mechanisms [103, 81, 100, 80], and API interfaces [48, 72], as well as through the construction of both…”
Self-citationA Survey on Trustworthy LLM Agents: Threats and Countermeasures
Yu, M., Meng, F., Zhou, X., Wang, S., Mao, J., Pan, L., Chen, T., Wang, K., Li, X., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 · doi:10.1145/3711896.3736561 · Cited by 34
“Furthermore, the introduction of inter-agent communication gives rise to the more advanced concept of Multi-agent System (MAS), making the “hy-per LLM ecosystem” become even more intricate, interactive and intelligent [32, 101].”
Self-citationKe, Z., Ming, Y., Xu, A., Chin, R., Nguyen, X.-P., Jwalapuram, P., Wang, J., Yavuz, S., Xiong, C., & Joty, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.14652 · Cited by 27
“MASS (Zhou et al., 2025) uses rejection sampling to select effective agent configurations, and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a) extends MASS with a question-wise masking mechanism to adapt subnet-works.”
DyFlow: Dynamic Workflow Framework for Agentic ReasoningPreprint
Wang, Y., Xu, Z., Huang, Y., Wang, X., Song, Z., Gao, L., Wang, C., Tang, X., Zhao, Y., Cohan, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.26062
“…by operator id or execution order 8: M [ k r ] ← r ▷ store output in memory dictionary 9: end for Unlike prior frameworks such as AFlow, MaAS [12, 15], which implement control structures like branching or looping via explicit edge logic in code-based graphs, DyFlow adopts a designer-centric…”
InfluentialSelf-citationDifficulty-Aware Agentic Orchestration for Query-Specific Multi-Agent Workflows
Su, J., Lan, Q., Xia, Y., Sun, L., Tian, W., Shi, T., & He, L. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792240 · Cited by 12
“We compare DAAO with three of agentic baselines: (1) single-agent approaches, including CoT [41], ComplexCoT [9], Self-Consistency [39]; (2) autonomous agentic workflows, including ADAS [14], AFlow [50] and MaAS [49].”
InfluentialAdaptive Graph Pruning for Multi-Agent Communication
Li, B., Zhao, Z., Lee, D.-H., & Wang, G. (2025) · European Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.02951 · Cited by 29
“(4) Even when compared to MaAS [41], a search algorithm that explores agent architecture distributions, our method achieves higher accuracy on GSM8K while reducing prompt-token costs by over half.”
Exploring Advanced LLM Multi-Agent Systems Based on Blackboard Architecture
Han, B., & Zhang, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01701 · Cited by 14
“Three autonomous MAS methods are implemented in accordance with the original implementation(Zhang et al., 2025d; Zhuge et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025a).”
VFlow: Discovering Optimal Agentic Workflows for Verilog Generation
Wei, Y., Huang, Z., He, L., Huang, L., Lin, T.-J., & Xing, W. W. (2026) · Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC) · doi:10.1109/asp-dac66049.2026.11420713 · Cited by 3
“By reformulating workflow design as a search problem, approaches like AFLOW and MaAS [15] can systematically discover effective workflows without extensive human intervention.”
HarnessForge: Joint Harness and Policy Evolution for Adaptive Agent Systems
Chen, M.-J., Lv, C.-C., Zhang, G., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.01779 · Cited by 23
“We compare HarnessForge against two main baseline groups: Search-style harness baselines include AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025c), ADAS (Hu et al., 2025), AgentSquare (Shang et al., 2025), MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a), and Mermaid-Flow (Zheng et al., 2025a).”
InfluentialSelf-citationRethinking the Value of Multi-Agent Workflow: A Strong Single Agent BaselinePreprint
Xu, J., Koesdwiady, A. B., Bei, S., Han, Y., Huang, B., Wang, D., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Wang, P., Li, P., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.12307 · Cited by 31
RobustFlow: Towards Robust Agentic Workflow GenerationPreprint
Xu, S., Zhang, J., Di, S., Luo, Y., Yao, L., Liu, H., Zhu, J., & Zhang, M.-L. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.21834
“Following Section 3.1, we construct a benchmark dataset of 7,530 query variants and 31,889 workflows across 3 task domains and 6 benchmarks:”
InfluentialWeak-for-Strong: Training Weak Meta-Agent to Harness Strong ExecutorsPreprint
Nie, F., Feng, L., Ye, H., Liang, W., Lu, P., Yao, H., Alahi, A., & Zou, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04785 · Cited by 23
Failure-Driven Workflow Refinement
Zhang, J., Cai, K., Zeng, Q., Liu, N., Fan, S., Chen, Z., & Wang, K.-Z. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.10035 · Cited by 22
“The dominant global search paradigm, exemplified by methods like Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) in systems such as MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a) or AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025b), attempts to minimize failure mass indirectly.”
Self-citationAgentSwift: Efficient LLM Agent Design via Value-guided Hierarchical SearchPreprint
Li, Y., Li, L., Wu, Z., Liao, Q., Hao, J., Shao, K., Xu, F., & Li, Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.06017
“Extending this direction, MaAS [41] shifts from searching for a single optimal workflow to learning a query-conditioned distribution over agentic architectures, enabling adaptive deployment.”
Graph-Augmented Large Language Model Agents: Current Progress and Future Prospects
Liu, Y., Zhang, G., Wang, K., Li, S., Pan, S., & An, B. (2026) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2025.3642667 · Cited by 31
“Interestingly, these redundancy patterns parallel classical graph lightweight-ing phenomena: redundant inter-agent communication mirrors edge redundancy, excessive agents correspond to removable, unnecessary nodes, and diminishing returns from prolonged multi-agent interactions resemble the…”
Self-citationMermaidFlow: Redefining Agentic Workflow Generation via Safety-Constrained Evolutionary ProgrammingPreprint
Zheng, C., Chen, J.-D., Lyu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22967 · Cited by 19
“We use a closed-source LLM (gpt-4o-mini-0718) as both the Optimization and Execution LLM, consistent with the setup in MaAS [28].”
InfluentialStop Wasting Your Tokens: Towards Efficient Runtime Multi-Agent Systems
Lin, F.-L., Chen, S.-W., Fang, R.-S., Wang, H.-W., & Lin, T. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26585 · Cited by 19
Li, S., Liu, Y., Zheng, Y., Li, M., Nguyen, Q. V. H., & Pan, S. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792537 · Cited by 1
EvoRoute: Experience-Driven Self-Routing LLM Agent Systems
Zhang, G.-B., Yu, H., Yang, K., Wu, B., Huang, F., Li, Y.-B., & Yan, S.-C. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02695 · Cited by 18
Self-citationDynamic Generation of Multi-LLM Agents Communication Topologies with Graph Diffusion Models
Jiang, E., Wan, G.-C., Yin, S., et al. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07799 · Cited by 17
“While all systems experienced some performance degradation, GTD’s accuracy dropped by a mere 0.3 percentage points (from 94.1% to 93.8%), showcasing a remarkably graceful degradation.”
InfluentialVisual Multi-Agent System: Mitigating Hallucination Snowballing via Visual FlowPreprint
Yu, X., Xu, C., Zhang, G., He, Y., Chen, Z., Xue, Z., Zhang, J., Liao, Y., Hu, X., Jiang, Y.-G., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.21789 · Cited by 13
Self-citationSafeMobile: Chain-level Jailbreak Detection and Automated Evaluation for Multimodal Mobile AgentsPreprint
Liang, S., Fang, T., Liu, Z., Liu, A., Xiao, Y., He, J., Chang, E., & Cao, X. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.00841 · Cited by 11
“In recent years, with the breakthrough progress of multi-modal foundation models (VLMs) [1]–[3], intelligent agent systems [4]–[7] driven by vision-language models (mobile agents [8]–[10]) have developed rapidly and are widely applied in critical scenarios such as mobile device operations, virtual…”
JIT-Agent: Scaling Harness Intelligence via Just-in-Time Harness EvolutionPreprint
Zhang, G., Lu, L., Xie, F., Zhu, K., Wang, J., Xie, Z., Yu, Z., Liu, Z., Sun, Z., Li, Q., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.25593 · Cited by 20
Self-citationFALAT: Tracing Failures in LLM Agent Trajectories via Dependency-Guided SearchPreprint
Rafi, M. N., Ahasanuzzaman, M., Kim, D. J., Wang, Z., & Chen, T.-H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.00765
“…prompt optimization [Khattab et al., 2023, Yuksekgonul et al., 2024], routing and model selection [Chen et al., 2025, Yue et al., 2025], adaptive interaction topologies [Zhuge et al., 2024], and workflow generation [Li et al., 2025a, Zhang et al., 2024, Hu et al., 2024, Zhang et al., 2025c,d].”
Synthesizing Multi-Agent Harnesses for Vulnerability DiscoveryPreprint
Liu, H., Shou, C., Liu, X., Wen, H., Chen, Y.-F. R., Fang, R. J., & Feng, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.20801 · Cited by 14
“MaAS [45] samples agent teams from a pre-defined pool but fixes how those agents communicate and hand off control.”
AgentConductor: Topology Evolution for Multi-Agent Competition-Level Code GenerationPreprint
Wang, S., Lu, R., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Xu, L., Xu, Q., Yin, G., Chen, C., & Guan, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.17100 · Cited by 15
Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Zhou, R., et al. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.19108 · Cited by 15
“Large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in recent years (Meta, 2024; Qin et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025), driving remarkable advancements across a wide range of diverse fields and applications (Wei et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2025).”
The Illusion of Multi-Agent AdvantagePreprint
Jwalapuram, P., Lin, H., Li, C., Jiao, F., Wang, S., Ming, Y., Ke, Z., Qin, C., Carenini, G., & Joty, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.13003 · Cited by 18
“Frameworks like MaAS [40] occupy a middle ground; while the underlying operator distributions are pre-optimized, the system performs inference-time routing by sampling query-dependent architectures on the fly.”
InfluentialLatentMem: Customizing Latent Memory for Multi-Agent Systems
Fu, M., Zhang, G., Xue, X., Li, Y.-F., He, Z.-F., Huang, S.-Y., Qu, X., Cheng, Y., & Yang, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03036 · Cited by 13
Self-citationGeoFlow: Agentic Workflow Automation for Geospatial Tasks
Bhattaram, A., Chung, J., Chung, S., Gupta, R., Ramamoorthy, J., Gullapalli, K., Marculescu, D., & Stamoulis, D. (2025) · ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (SIGSPATIAL GIS) · doi:10.1145/3748636.3763217 · Cited by 14
“Novel techniques such as Flow [6], AFlow [14], AutoFlow [4], and MaaS [13] formulate agentic workflows as Activity-on-Vertex a r X i v : 2508 .”
Huang, Q.-H., Zhou, Z.-Q., Li, Y.-Z., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.52202/085713-5550 · Cited by 12
“Crucially, Multi-Agent Systems allow individual agents to process information from distinct perspectives and coordinate their outputs to Yang Wang and Zhengyang Zhou are corresponding authors. achieve a common objective [74, 57].”
Chen, B., Wang, Z., Yue, Z., Yan, K., Yu, C., Huang, Y., Liu, Z., Wen, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.19524 · Cited by 4
“Second, RL-based paradigm train collaborative policies by optimizing agent behaviors [2, 3, 8, 39, 49, 60, 70, 84] or interaction architectures [46, 72, 73].”
Goal-Aware Identification and Rectification of Misinformation in Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Li, Z., Mi, Y., Zhou, Z., Jiang, H., Zhang, G., Wang, K., & Fang, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00509 · Cited by 13
“Advanced agent architectures, like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2023) and ReAct (Yao et al., 2023), enhance the internal decision-making processes by incorporating step-by-step reasoning and environment interaction capabilities (Zhang et al., 2025a, 2024c).”
Self-citationMetaGen: Self-Evolving Roles and Topologies for Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning
Wang, Y., Zhao, J.-X., Xie, H., Ma, H., Lei, Y.-Z., Liu, S.-X., Song, X., Zhang, Z.-C., & Zhang, H.-R. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.19290 · Cited by 10
“Graph-structured formulations are a natural fit for multi-agent collaboration, as they explicitly model information dependencies and interaction constraints among agents [ Zhang et al. , 2025b ] .”
Automated Composition of Agents: A Knapsack Approach for Agentic Component Selection
Yuan, M., Pahwa, K., Chang, S.-C., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.16499 · Cited by 10
“Multi-agent Architecture Search [39] optimizes an agentic supernet and then will sample a multi-agent architecture in a query-dependent manner.”
Shen, X., Zhang, Q., Wang, S., Tan, Z., Zhao, X., Yao, L., Tadiparthi, V., Mahjoub, H. N., Moradi‐Pari, E., Lee, K., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.14319 · Cited by 13
“Such systems demonstrated the potential of LLM-based collaboration but required extensive manual design effort, limiting scalability and adaptability (Zhang et al., 2025b).”
PowerChain: A verifiable agentic AI system for automating distribution grid analyses
Badmus, E. O., Sang, P., Stamoulis, D. S., & Pandey, A. (2026) · Electric Power Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2026.113555 · Cited by 15
Aime: Towards Fully-Autonomous Multi-Agent Framework
Shi, Y., Wang, M., Cao, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.11988 · Cited by 10
“More advanced approaches such as Agentic Supernet (Zhang et al., 2025a) and FlowReasoner (Gao et al., 2025) even learn to generate these workflows from predefined agentic operators.”
Scaling Discovery through Test-Time Communication
Park, J., Kontonis, V., Garg, S., Krishnamurthy, A., & Papailiopoulos, D. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.21032 · Cited by 10
“Agent graphs and communication links can be optimized directly (Zhuge et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025c), while architecture search can adapt the system to the task (Zhang et al., 2025b; Yun et al., 2026).”
AgentAsk: Multi-Agent Systems Need to Ask
Lin, B., Yang, K., Tan, Z.-L., et al. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07593 · Cited by 9
“We reveal these errors through an audit of 824 execution logs, annotating each agent-to-agent message as the unit of analysis.”
Self-citationVideoAgent: All-in-One Framework for Video Understanding and Editing
Zhou, H., Huang, L., Wang, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23327 · Cited by 8
Agentic Services ComputingPreprint
Deng, S.-G., Zhao, H.-L., Wang, Z.-Q., Cheng, G., Chen, P., Qian, W.-Z., Ling, Z.-W., Yin, J., Zomaya, A. Y., & Dustdar, S. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24380 · Cited by 9
“Classical services are passive: invoked, executed, forgotten.”
Why Search When You Can Transfer? Amortized Agentic Workflow Design from Structural Priors
Du, S.-Y., Liu, J.-Y., Du, W., Huang, Y., Li, J.-Y., Luo, Y.-T., Zhang, X.-L., Conitzer, V., & Kingsford, C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.25012 · Cited by 7
“We compare SWIFT against: (1) Single-agent paradigms (e.g., CoT (Wei et al., 2022), SC (Wang et al., 2023)); (2) Hand-crafted multi-agent workflows (e.g., DyLAN (Liu et al., 2024), AgentVerse (Chen et al., 2024b)); and (3) Automated test-time search (e.g., AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025c), MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a)).”
InfluentialWorkflow-R1: Group Sub-sequence Policy Optimization for Multi-turn Workflow ConstructionPreprint
Kong, M., Qu, Z., Zhou, Z., Liang, P., Li, X., Shang, Z., Hong, Z., Huang, K., Wang, Z., & Dai, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01202 · Cited by 9
“In our reproduction, we follow their official implementations: MaAS employs GPT-4o-mini (Hurst et al., 2024) and AFlow employs Claude-3.”
InfluentialLiu, S., Yuan, X.-Y., Chen, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.19793 · Cited by 7
“Secondly, while recent architectural optimizations (e.g., Agentic Supernet) address system topology, they lack the granularity to dynamically adjust resource allocation at the individual step level based on real-time task difficulty.”
Wang, J., Zhao, S., Liu, J., Wang, H., Li, W., Qin, B., & Liu, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04861 · Cited by 8
“Furthermore, orchestration and routing methods dynamically adjust agent roles and collaboration patterns based on the evolving task context (Dang et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025a; Wang et al., 2025b).”
Toward a Safe Internet of AgentsPreprint
Wibowo, J. A., & Polyzos, G. C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00520 · Cited by 10
“Subsequent frameworks like AgentSquare , MASS , and MaAS refined this by utilizing verifiers or validation set performance to guide the sub-network selection process (Shang et al. 2025; G. Zhang, Niu, et al. 2025; Zhou et al. 2025).”
Compound AI Systems Optimization: A Survey of Methods, Challenges, and Future Directions
Lee, Y.-A., Yi, G., Liu, M., Lu, J.-C., Yang, G.-B., & Chen, Y.-N. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08234 · Cited by 7
“Despite these risks, research on compound AI system optimization that extends beyond downstream performance has so far addressed mainly execution efficiency (Zhang et al., 2025), with little attention to system-level alignment or safety (Zheng et al., 2025).”
InfluentialTopological Structure Learning Should Be A Research Priority for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
Yang, J., Zhang, M.-Q., Jin, Y., Chen, H., Wen, Q.-S., Lin, L., He, Y., Kumar, S., Xu, W., Evans, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22467 · Cited by 8
“Future work should explore task-oriented dynamic topology synthesis that can adapt during execution to unseen test instances or evolving task requirements.”
OmniQEC: discovering practical quantum error-correcting codes by an AI scientistPreprint
Yan, G., Li, S., Ma, P., Zhang, Q., Ma, P., Wang, J., Hsieh, M.-H., & Du, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.25865 · Cited by 9
SKILL-DISCO: Distilling and Compiling Agent Traces into Reusable Procedural Skills
Guo, Z., Qi, D., Gu, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26669 · Cited by 6
“At the system level, ADAS (Hu et al., 2024), AgentSquare (Shang et al., 2024), AFlow (Zhang et al., 2024), and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025) automate agentic-system or workflow design.”
TacoMAS: Test-Time Co-Evolution of Topology and Capability in LLM-based Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Xu, C., Hu, Y., Wang, R., Lin, X., Wang, W., Liu, D., & Feng, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.09539 · Cited by 10
“…generator once, then sample (and freeze) a fresh graph for each query: ARG-Designer (Li et al., 2026) autoregressively emits a DAG; MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a) samples from a learned agentic supernet; MetaAgent (Zhang et al., 2025c) predicts an FSM of agent transitions; SwarmAgentic…”
InfluentialAgent Q-Mix: Selecting the Right Action for LLM Multi-Agent Systems through Reinforcement Learning
Jiang, E., Li, L., Sun, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.00344 · Cited by 6
Inefficiencies of Meta Agents for Agent Design
El, B., Yüksekgönül, M., & Zou, J. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1135 · Cited by 1
“Other recent meta-agent approaches include Multi-agent Supernet (Zhang et al., 2025a), Flow (Niu et al., 2025), and AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025b).”
Fang, J., Peng, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Yi, X., Zhang, G., Xu, Y., Wu, B., Liu, S., Li, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.07407 · Cited by 6
Self-citationDarwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents
Zhang, J., Hu, S., Lu, C., Lange, R., & Clune, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22954 · Cited by 344
Song, W., Yue, J., & Pang, Z. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22791 · Cited by 5
Zhou, Y., Lu, X., Liu, D., Yan, J., & Shao, J. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.14667 · Cited by 9
“However, these methods are often ill-suited for dynamic MAS environments (Liu et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025) and struggle to mitigate active injection attacks (Amayuelas et al., 2024; Lee and Tiwari, 2024).”
Cai, S., Yansong, N. I. N. G., & Liu, H. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.11426 · Cited by 5
“Experiments demonstrate that AgentBalance achieves consistent performance gains across different token-cost and latency budgets in different regimes.”
MedDCR: Learning to Design Agentic Workflows for Medical Coding
Zheng, J., Nassar, I., Vu, T., Zhong, X., Lin, Y., Liu, T.-L., Duong, L., & Li, Y.-F. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.13361 · Cited by 5
“Others attempt to expand the search space to work-flows (Hu et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025a,b), where both the definition of workflow components and their topological organisation are jointly optimised, but in practice, many components remain fixed, making discovered agents less flexible.”
Automated Multi-Agent Workflows for RTL Design
Bhattaram, A., Ramamoorthy, J., Gupta, R., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.20182 · Cited by 5
“We employ a cascading controller [31] that selects increasingly complex operators at each stage, following At each stage c , the controller C computes a confidence score s c indicating whether to proceed to the next operator in the cascade.”
InfluentialAccelerating Prefilling for Long-Context LLMs via Sparse Pattern SharingPreprint
Peng, D., Fu, Z., Ye, Z., Song, Z., & Wang, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.19578
“1 and Gemini 1.5 (Team et al., 2024) now support contexts up to one million tokens, advancing multi-document QA (Wang et al., 2024), code understanding (Bairi et al., 2024; Ziftci et al., 2025), and multi-turn dialogue (Zhang et al., 2025).”
InfluentialParallelized Planning-Acting for Efficient LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems
Li, Y., Liu, S., Zheng, T.-Y., & Song, M.-L. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03505 · Cited by 3
GTA: Graph Theory Agent and Benchmark for Algorithmic Graph Reasoning with LLMs
Xu, Z.-X., Wang, Y.-B., Wang, C., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.12265 · Cited by 4
StepFinder: A Temporal Semantic Framework for Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems
Zhu, T., Wu, Y., Jin, W., Li, Y., & Huang, G. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3817991 · Cited by 2
“To address these limitations, multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a superior paradigm, enabling task decomposition through role specialization and adaptive communication architectures [6, 13, 23, 38, 44, 46].”
On Time, Within Budget: Constraint-Driven Online Resource Allocation for Agentic WorkflowsPreprint
Wang, X., Liu, Z., Feng, S., Yuan, P., Li, Y., Shi, J., Zhang, Y., Tan, C., Zhang, J., Pan, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.06110 · Cited by 4
“…workflow programs using task feedback (Zhang et al., 2025c), while subsequent work explores multi-agent architecture search, communication topology design, dynamic agent elimination, workflow evolution, and preference-based workflow optimization (Zhang et al., 2025a,b; Wang et al., 2025g,e,f).”
Self-citationAgentic AI-Empowered Dynamic Survey Framework
Mumcu, F., Bekit, L., Jones, M. J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04071 · Cited by 4
“[26, 16, 35, 6] In parallel, recent studies emphasize the importance of small language models within agentic systems, advocating for collections of lightweight, task-specific agents rather than reliance on a single large model [2].”
Learning Latency-Aware Orchestration for Multi-Agent Systems
Shi, X., Zheng, M., & Lou, Q. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.13359 · Cited by 4
“LAMaS represents the orchestrator as a policy network over an agentic supernet —a probabilistic DAG over a fixed set of candidate operators O (a formulation also adopted by Zhang et al. [2025a]).”
InfluentialPASS: Probabilistic Agentic Supernet Sampling for Interpretable and Adaptive Chest X-Ray Reasoning
Feng, Y., Du, J.-Y., Hong, Y.-T., et al. (2025) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10501 · Cited by 4
MasHost Builds It All: Autonomous Multi-Agent System Directed by Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Yang, K., Yang, X., Yu, L., Xu, Q., Fang, Y., Wang, X., Zhou, Z., & Wang, Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08507 · Cited by 3
“Following the experimental settings adopted by most baselines [43, 41], we select GPT-4o-mini-0718 [22] as the LLM executor, which is accessed via APIs.”
InfluentialSelf-citationOMAC: A Holistic Optimization Framework for LLM-Based Multi-Agent CollaborationPreprint
Li, S., Hasson, H., & Ghosh, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11765 · Cited by 4
“For example, in the MaAS implementation, the authors directly adopt well-optimized and near-optimal agent configurations from prior work like AgentCoder (Huang et al., 2023) and ReAct (Yao et al., 2023) as fixed functional components, and only optimize the collaboration structure.”
InfluentialGao, H.-A., Geng, J., Hua, W., Hu, M., Juan, X., Liu, H., Liu, S., Qiu, J., Qi, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21046 · Cited by 3
Rethinking the Evaluation of Efficiency Methods for Multi-Agent Systems
Zhang, J.-M., Zhang, L.-X., Lu, P.-J., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.05933 · Cited by 3
“As recent MAS studies (Dang et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025a) increasingly scale to larger LLMs, more agents, and longer interactions, the high execution costs from LLM calls and inter-agent communication make system efficiency increasingly important.”
AutoRAS: Learning Robust Agentic Systems with Primitive RepresentationsPreprint
Yue, Y., Zhu, X., Ma, Y., Nan, G., Dou, Z., Shan, J., Guo, C., Zhang, J., Wang, H., & Zhang, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.21445 · Cited by 3
“Inspired by prior textual feedback methods (Hao et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025a), we distill each execution into a rationale ν ( X ) that summarizes robustness issues and safety needs, and treat it as a unified textual gradient in the prompt space.”
InfluentialFlowBank: Query-Adaptive Agentic Workflows Optimization through Precompute-and-ReusePreprint
Yuan, L., Deng, C., Yu, F., Chakraborty, S., Rostami, M., & Huang, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.11290 · Cited by 4
“For MaAS, we follow the default configuration reported in the original paper Zhang et al. (2025b), using a four-layer query-aware controller trained for four sampling repetitions and GPT-4o mini as the TextGrad-based prompt-refinement model.”
InfluentialEvolve as a Team: Collaborative Self-Evolution for LLM-based Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Hao, Z., Wang, T., Dong, H., Liu, Z., Wang, H., Lin, X., Lin, Q., Wang, C., Dong, H., & Chen, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.29790 · Cited by 17
“…a meta-level optimizer to generate, search, or refine MAS configurations based on performance metrics (e.g., pass rates or final rewards) [28, 58, 78, 80, 87]; (2) Memorization-driven strategies, which directly store MAS trajectories or interaction fragments for subsequent retrieval [39, 43, 74].”
InfluentialRUMAD: Reinforcement-Unifying Multi-Agent Debate
Wang, C., Lin, H., Tang, H., Lin, H., & Ding, W. (2026) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/cbjo8409 · Cited by 5
“This challenge shares many similarities with recent research about automatic generation of agent workflows. such as MACNET [15], AFlow [24], and MaAS [23], which primarily focus on optimizing the static workflow or agentic pipeline.”
Socially-Weighted Alignment: A Game-Theoretic Framework for Multi-Agent LLM SystemsPreprint
Mumcu, F., & Yılmaz, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.14471 · Cited by 3
BayesFlow: A Probability Inference Framework for Meta-Agent Assisted Workflow GenerationPreprint
Yuan, B., Zhou, Y., Xu, Z., Ramnath, K., Feng, A., & Srinivasan, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22305 · Cited by 1
“We also compare against three automatic workflow generation baselines: ADAS, AFlow (Zhang et al., 2024a) and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025).”
JudgeFlow: Agentic Workflow Optimization via Block JudgePreprint
Ma, Z., Zhao, Z., Hua, C., Berto, F., & Park, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07477 · Cited by 3
“Building on code-represented workflows, Zhang et al. (2025b) introduce operators as modular units that encapsulate common agentic actions and propose a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) framework that employs LLMs to iteratively optimize workflows using past experience.”
InfluentialComfySearch: Autonomous Exploration and Reasoning for ComfyUI Workflows
Su, J., Lan, Q.-Z., Wang, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04060 · Cited by 3
Searching Meta Reasoning Skeleton to Guide LLM Reasoning
Zhang, Z., Wang, Y.-Q., & Yao, Q.-M. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04116 · Cited by 3
“In terms of inference, AutoMR is slightly slower than naive reasoning process based on GRPO-trained LLM and slightly faster than MaAS, while being substantially more efficient than Meta-Reasoner, which relies on additional LLM calls to summarize reasoning progress.”
InfluentialMAS2: Self-Generative, Self-Configuring, Self-Rectifying Multi-Agent Systems
Wang, K., Zhang, G.-M., Ye, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24323 · Cited by 3
“The baselines against which we compare MAS 2 can be broadly grouped into three categories: ■ vanilla LLMs , where single models are directly evaluated, alongside prompting strategies such as CoT (Wei et al., 2023) and Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023a); ■ handcrafted multi-agent systems , including MedPrompt (Nori…”
InfluentialSelf-citationChen, S., Zhao, Z., & Chen, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17442 · Cited by 5
“Routing directs inputs or subtasks to specialized models or agents to achieve better accuracy and cost trade-offs than any single static pipeline [34].”
PowerChain: Automating Distribution Grid Analysis with Agentic AI Workflows
Badmus, E. O., Sang, P., Stamoulis, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.17094 · Cited by 3
Aegis: Automated Error Generation and Attribution for Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Kong, F., Zhang, R., Yin, H., Zhang, G., Zhang, X., Chen, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Zhu, S. C., & Feng, X. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.14295 · Cited by 21
Self-citationCandidate supply and answer selection shape the value of LLM judging in multi-agent systemsPreprint
Ji, J.-H., Li, S., Cheng, J., She, Z., Yu, J.-T., & Yuan, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.25937 · Cited by 2
“When agents repeat the same plausible error, voting can suppress a less frequent correct alternative ,22 .”
Liu, D., & Li, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.26195 · Cited by 2
“MAST identifies membership mismatch through failure-trace patterns, and MaAS resolves it by making architecture a task-dependent supernet choice that pays full-team cost only when the task requires it [5, 79].”
The Path to Self-Evolving Clinical Systems: Scaling Medical Agents from Assistance to AutonomyPreprint
Zhu, C., Tian, L., Tan, B., Zhou, Z., Sun, Y., Wang, Y., Lv, C., Wen, Y., He, Y., Lin, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.11175 · Cited by 3
“…graph whose edges are tuned for the task [323], DyLAN activates and prunes agents according to their contribution [155], and the agentic supernet of MaAS allocates topology and compute as a function of query difficulty so that easy cases stay cheap and hard cases recruit more structure [299].”
Automating the Design of Embodied AgentArchitectures
Zhou, J., Lin, S.-H., Li, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.30111 · Cited by 2
“…analogy to neural architecture search [9], and subsequent work has explored stronger optimizers, structured workflow spaces, and multi-agent compositions (AFlow [10], AgentSquare [11], MaAS [12], GPTSwarm [26]), as well as general optimization frameworks and platforms (Trace [27], EvoAgentX [28]).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, G., Niu, L., Fang, J., Wang, K., Bai, L., & Wang, X.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.04180
- OpenAlex
- W4407247211
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 99
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- multi-agent systems, architecture search, large language models, tool calls, inference cost reduction
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-24, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-24 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
