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
Items 101–200 of 205
Multi-Agent Coordination Adaptation via Structure-Guided OrchestrationPreprint
Li, H., Chen, S., Sun, S., & Wang, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.25746 · Cited by 3
“…categorized into two streams: (I) Structure-Centric Adaptation methods (Yang et al., 2025b; Wang et al., 2025d) adapt multi-agent topology, with methods such as AgentPrune (Zhang et al., 2024a) and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a) parameterizing agent interactions (Li et al., 2023b; Yan et al., 2021).”
Parallelized Planning-Acting for Multi-Agent LLM Systems in Minecraft
Li, Y., Liu, S., Zheng, T., Sun, L., & Song, M. (2026) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/exaj9853 · Cited by 16
EvoMAS: Learning Execution-Time Workflows for Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Xu, C., Ke, K., Liu, Z., Wei, J., Shao, Z., Guo, W., & Yu, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08769 · Cited by 6
“These methods demonstrate that automated system design can outperform hand-crafted agent configurations on a range of tasks [44, 39, 36, 38, 37].”
InfluentialAdministrative Decentralization in Edge-Cloud Multi-Agent for Mobile Automation
Li, S.-Y., Zuo, Z., Wang, H.-Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.07767 · Cited by 2
“However, current architectures [16] face a fundamental dilemma: monolithic cloud controllers [4] incur pro-hibitive latency and privacy risks, while strict on-device [22, 30] constraints hinder the scalability of domain-specific models [10, 20].”
Li, R., Zhang, Z., Bo, X., Dai, Q., Li, C., Wen, F., & Chen, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.08009
“…et al., 2003) to accommodate variable agent populations, avoiding the prohibitive re-optimization overhead of pre-wiring models (Zhuge et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025a;b;c) and the combinatorial bottlenecks of centralized meta-controllers (Ke et al., 2025; Dang et al., 2025); (iii) Robustness…”
Dep-Search: Learning Dependency-Aware Reasoning Traces with Persistent MemoryPreprint
Liu, Y., Peng, X., Yan, Z., Shen, Y., Xu, W., Huang, Y., Wang, X., Cao, J., Yin, J., & Zhang, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18771 · Cited by 2
“Early memory-augmented systems typically log past interactions or retrieved documents in a buffer and naively prepend them to the prompt, which quickly becomes inefficient and noisy as the context grows [3, 41].”
Self-citationWang, Z., Xu, B.-B., Yuan, Y., et al. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11147 · Cited by 2
“…data dependencies, and communication among these agents, which can be represented in various forms: as executable code (e.g. Hu et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024b; Xu et al., 2025) or as directed acyclic graphs(e.g. Zhuge et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024a; Wang et al., 2025b; Zhang et al., 2025).”
Zhang, Y.-H., Wang, X., Gao, H.-R., et al. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.18680 · Cited by 2
Self-citationLearning Latency-Aware Orchestration for Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Shi, X., Zheng, M., & Lou, Q. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10560 · Cited by 7
“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]).”
InfluentialGraph-Assisted Large Language Models: A Perspective on Mitigating Intrinsic Limitations
Luo, H., Wang, F., Zhang, W., Zhang, X., Zhiwei, Z., Zhao, T., Lin, M., Zhang, J., Liu, H., Tang, X., et al. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.945
“Graph-Assisted Reasoning and Planning §6 Graph-StructuredReasoning ToT (Yao et al., 2023), GoT (Besta et al., 2024), SaGoT (Bai et al., 2025), SGP (Cheng et al., 2024), RwG (Han et al., 2025), , Talk-like-graph (Fatemi et al., 2023) Graph-AssistedPlanning HuggingGPT (Shen et al., 2023), PLaG (Lin et al., 2024), GNN4Ta…”
Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems
Kim, Y., Gu, K., Park, C., Park, C., Schmidgall, S., Heydari, A. A., Yan, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhuang, Y., Liu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08296 · Cited by 197
HuggingR4: A Progressive Reasoning Framework for Discovering Optimal Model Companions
Ma, S., Song, J., Wang, H., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.18715 · Cited by 1
MindFlow: Mind Supernet Powered Thinking Flows for Research Idea InnovationPreprint
Liu, M., Chen, W., Chen, W., Yang, C., Kong, F., Gao, Z., Cheng, X., Li, Y., Yuan, Y., Li, K., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.11966 · Cited by 1
LiteEvo: Automated, Cost-Efficient Harness Evolution for Generalization to Unseen TasksPreprint
Choi, E., Song, S., & Yoo, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.33146 · Cited by 1
“…over whole agent designs: ADAS programs new agents in code (Hu et al., 2025), AFlow searches over code-represented work-flows (Zhang et al., 2025b), AgentSquare searches a modular design space (Shang et al., 2025), and MaAS samples multi-agent systems from a learned supernet (Zhang et al., 2025a).”
Proxifield: Decentralized Multi-Agent Communication through Semantic Proximity
Tambwekar, P., Feng, Y., Patel, D. S., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.20889 · Cited by 1
“The benefits of rigid coordination scaffolds diminish as base-model capabilities improve [6], motivating architectures that adapt their communication topology and task allocation during execution rather than fixing them in advance [31, 32, 16].”
EMR: Self-Evolving Medical Multi-Agent System via Experience Mining and ReusePreprint
Shi, D., Li, Y., Yi, X., & Wang, L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.15161
“Rather than evolving prompts (Yuksekgonul et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025c) or workflows (Lin et al., 2025a; Zhang et al., 2025a; Shang et al., 2024) in isolation, multi-agent systems should extract reusable knowledge from their own reasoning trajectories and store it in a form that is…”
Spawn Freely, Act Sparingly: Progressive Risk Vesting for Recursive LLM-Agent Trees
Wang, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.01035
“MaAS studies the related problem of allocating inference resources across candidate architectures [23].”
Jiang, Y.-X., Fan, J.-R., Xu, M.-C., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.27984 · Cited by 1
“…automatic workflow and topology generation, enabling orchestration modules to dynamically synthe-size agent roles and communication structures conditioned on task semantics (Zhang et al., 2024b; Li et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025b; Zhou et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025a; Shi et al., 2025).”
Agent Against Agent: An Agentic System for Automatic Prompt Injection Red TeamingPreprint
Wang, Y., Yin, C., Geng, R., & Jia, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.05108 · Cited by 1
When Agents Go Rogue: Activation-Based Detection of Malicious Behaviors in Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Xu, H., Tan, X. G., Ma, L. R., Zhang, Z., Wang, C., Wang, Q., Chen, P., Dai, J., & Sun, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.06807 · Cited by 2
“In asynchronous MAS (Yu et al., 2025a; Zhang et al., 2025a; Wu et al., 2024), agents execute independently based on task availability and dependency constraints rather than fixed global rounds.”
Serving Agentic Workflows with a Physical-Plan Compiler and Adaptive RuntimePreprint
Qian, J., Zhang, Y., Yang, H., Tao, C., Kundu, S., Wan, Z., & Krishna, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.02942 · Cited by 2
“We focus on workflows materialized before execution as directed acyclic graphs [6, 23, 27, 28].”
Improving Medical Communication using Rubric-Guided Counterfactual RecommendationsPreprint
Cosma, A., Basoc, N.-N., NICULAE, A., Dumitrache, C., & Rǎdoi, E. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.18889 · Cited by 1
“…been used in the past for reliable feature extraction under a fixed schema (He et al., 2024; Gilardi et al., 2023; Törnberg, 2023), recent works have used LMs to discover what features to extract in the first place (Cosma et al., 2026; Balek et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025).”
Do More Agents Help? Evaluating Accuracy and Cost in LLM Multi-Agent WorkflowsPreprint
Fu, Y., Fang, R., Shao, J., Zheng, H., Zhu, Z., Luo, B., Wen, Z., & Lin, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05670 · Cited by 2
“…structure within a designer-specified space, as in AgentVerse, EvoAgent, ADAS, AFlow, and Magentic-One [9, 12, 15, 37, 39]; MaAS extends this by searching over query-dependent agent topologies via an agentic super-net [38]; MASPO further co-optimizes agent prompts jointly across the pipeline [32].”
Xiao, Y.-T., Guo, S., Yang, G.-M., Wang, Q., Ren, Y.-L., Qiu, X.-S., & Qi, F. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.65109/pgwi7290 · Cited by 2
“Furthermore, relying solely on variational latent models and multinomial distributions (Zhang et al., 2025a) offers a simplistic representation of collaboration patterns and LLMs.”
AgentEvo: cost-aware agentic workflow generation via adaptive multi-stage evolution
Xiao, B., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Hou, Y., Xu, K., & Zhang, X. (2026) · Complex & Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s40747-026-02325-0
“Specifically, for the MATH benchmark, we adopt the methodology outlined in [25] and select a challenging subset of 617 problems from four representative categories: Combinatorics & Probability, Number Theory, Pre-algebra, and Pre-calculus.”
Coupled Hierarchical Search over Topology and Execution for Agentic Workflow Synthesis
Li, D., Liu, Y.-C., Zhao, X.-J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.21609 · Cited by 1
“An LLM-based optimizer expands the selected node to obtain a new node v cj ′ by applying operators widely adopted in prior work [23, 30] based on the node’s contextual information.”
InfluentialCOLLATOR: Compositional Multi-Agent Orchestration with Counterfactual Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Chen, X., Liu, Y., Wei, H., & Ding, K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14483 · Cited by 7
Hierarchical Attacks for Multi-Modal Multi-Agent Reasoning
Zhou, H., Wu, T.-R., Jiang, Y., Zhou, W.-Q., Hu, J.-X., & Han, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13213 · Cited by 3
“Moving beyond these single-agent paradigms, multi-agent systems further leverage LLMs’ role-playing and coordination abilities to support collaborative planning and problem-solving [27, 34, 36, 44].”
So, N., Jang, S.-W., & Kim, T. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.18951 · Cited by 1
“Among various lines of work, adaptive MAS (Zhuge et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025) have emerged as a prominent direction, where agent roles and communication topologies are adapted to a given task and objective, analogous to optimization in standard supervised learning.”
FlowEvo: Self-Evolving Agents through the Co-Evolution of Workflows and Executable Skills
Ren, Z.-Y., Yue, L., Li, R., Wang, Y.-S., Xu, S.-X., Liu, H.-M., Pan, S.-W., & Di, S.-M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.21596 · Cited by 3
TheoremForge: Scaling up Formal Data Synthesis with Low-Budget Agentic Workflow
Tao, Y.-C., & Xu, H.-T. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17332 · Cited by 1
“Recent research emphasizes automating architecture design via agentic supernets to search for optimal multi-agent compositions (Zhang et al., 2025c; Wang et al., 2025e; Zhang et al., 2025b; Hu et al., 2025b).”
Grammar Search for Multi-Agent Systems
Singh, M., Yadav, V., Malay, S. K. R., et al. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.14079 · Cited by 1
“Corpus-level search methods such as ADAS, AFlow, and GPTSwarm discover one MAS that performs well across a dataset, while query-level methods such as MaAS, FlowReasoner (Gao et al., 2025), and Mas-Router (Yue et al., 2025) generate or adapt a new MAS for each input query.”
InfluentialFutureWeaver: Planning Test-Time Compute for Multi-Agent Systems with Modularized CollaborationPreprint
Jung, D., Shi, P., Chen, M., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.11213 · Cited by 2
“These findings underscore the importance of structured collaboration and forward-looking planning for budget-constrained inference, and point toward a promising direction for building more adaptable and compute-efficient multi-agent systems.”
DRAMA: Next-Gen Dynamic Orchestration for Resilient Multi-Agent Ecosystems in FluxPreprint
Zhao, X., Zhang, Y., Liu, S., Wang, N., Cheng, G., Xu, Y., Liu, C., Deng, S., & Yin, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.04332 · Cited by 2
“ProAgent [33] emphasizes real-time belief updating and adaptive decision-making, and MaAS [34] introduces an agentic supernet to enable query-conditioned architecture optimization.”
NeuralFSM: Adaptive Multi-Agent Coordination via Learning Finite-State Execution Policy
Wang, J., Wang, Y., Li, J.-B., Yang, S., Guo, K., & Zhao, Y. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1543 · Cited by 1
“Automatically designed MAS: GPTSwarm (Zhuge et al., 2024), AutoA-gents (Chen et al., 2024a), AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025d), G-Designer (Zhang et al., 2025c), MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025b), and MasHost (Yang et al., 2025).”
InfluentialEvoAgentX: An Automated Framework for Evolving Agentic Workflows
Wang, Y., Liu, S., Fang, J., & Meng, Z. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-demos.47 · Cited by 1
Self-citationEffective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents
Geng, J., & Neubig, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21489 · Cited by 23
“…[Benkovich and Valkov, 2026], to include verification mechanisms in multi-agent systems [Venkataramani et al., 2026], and to automated searches over communication topologies [Zhang et al., 2025a]—most of these approaches primarily address how tasks are decomposed and allocated across agents.”
At Equal Inference Cost, Multi-Agent Structure Does Not Beat a Single Frozen Agent
Dylan, D., Brennan, A., Murphy, C., O'Sullivan, N., Kelly, C., & Walsh, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.04217 · Cited by 3
“The 2025 frontier optimizes a distribution over architectures under explicit cost–performance trade-offs: MaAS learns an agentic supernet [38], MASS jointly searches prompts and topologies [39], and query-level routers select architectures per input [40], [41], [42]; surveys map the…”
Better Harnesses, Smaller Models: Building 90% Cheaper Agents via Automated Harness Adaptation
Yang, C., Zhao, X., Wu, T., & Kästner, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08938 · Cited by 11
“Other work has extended this to agents with explicitly modular components (e.g., planning, memory) [59], to topology in multi-agent systems [60], [61], etc.”
Multi-Agent Design: Optimizing Agents with Better Prompts and Topologies
Zhou, H., Wan, X., Sun, R., Palangi, H., Iqbal, S., Vulić, I., Korhonen, A., & Arık, S. Ö. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.02533
“Concurrently with us, MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025) optimizes an agentic supernet for query-dependent MAS.”
FlowReasoner: Reinforcing Query-Level Meta-Agents
Gao, H., Liu, Y., He, Y., Dou, L., Du, C., Deng, Z., Hooi, B., Lin, M., & Pang, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15257
“To overcome this limitation, state-of-the-art methods represent the multi-agent systems as programming codes [18] and prompt a performant LLM, e.g., GPT-4o, as a meta-agent to optimize workflows via complex search algorithms on carefully designed search sets [58, 42, 57].”
InfluentialMAS-on-the-Fly: In-Context Structural Adaptation of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
Liu, G., Lin, H., Zeng, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13671
ADIAS: Automated Design of Interactive Agentic Systems
Jiang, L., Tang, B., Goetz, S., & Guo, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.06410
“Other methods compose predefined reasoning, planning, tool-use, memory, and inference-time components, as in AgentSquare, Archon, MaAS, and AgentSwift (Shang et al., 2025; Saad-Falcon et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025a; Li et al., 2026).”
Conservative Meta-Agent Search: Architecture Adaptation under Non-Stationarity
Alzahrani, A. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.31436
“…a LinUCB ban-dit [29] over a 15-architecture menu (partially logged; Table 6); AFlow-style workflow search [14, 19]; MaAS/AutoMaAS-style adaptive selection [20, 9], the strongest adaptive competitor and what “best adaptive baseline” denotes throughout; and GEPA-style prompt-only optimization [1].”
InfluentialCredit Where Credit Is Due: Contrastive Attribution Topology Search for Multi-Agent Systems
Tritthart, F., & Zehle, T. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.29292
“Topology is an established optimization target: GPTSwarm optimizes agent graphs, MaAS samples query-dependent systems from an agentic supergraph, and AgentPrune prunes redundant or malicious communication [15, 16, 17].”
InsightRAG: Aggregating Distributed Scholarly Judgments for Scientific Survey Generation
Lin, Y.-Q., Zhang, W.-S., Ye, Y.-L., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.28085
Train Locally, Learn Together: Distributed Multi-Agent Training via ADMMPreprint
Chen, Y., Wang, C., Lang, Y., Qu, Q., Hero, A. O., & Liu, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.24380
Not All Test-Time Compute Is Evidence: Model-Specific Bias in LLM Reasoning
Shen, M., & Yao, T.-J. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.23213
Who Plans, Who Edits? Verified, Cost-Aware Division of Labor for LLM-Driven Analog Layout Repair
Dai, X.-L., & Mohammadi, S. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.24234
“Cascades and routers send easy queries to cheap models and hard ones to strong models [7] – [9], multi-LLM systems learn role assignments or agent architectures [19], [20], and planner/executor decompositions separate decision-making from execution [21] – [23].”
HTN-Orchestrate: A Hierarchical Task Network Framework for Multi-Agent OrchestrationPreprint
Deng, Y., Huang, J., Teng, Y. L., Li, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, N., Su, L., Wang, X., & An, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.22195
“AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025b) and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a) reduce manual design effort by automating workflow and architecture construction, while Conductor (Nielsen et al., 2026) and MAS-Orchestra (Ke et al., 2026) learn to generate orchestration decisions through reinforcement learning.”
Self-citationJev-LiteMAS: Separating Decisions from Generation in Multi-Agent Workflows
Wang, K.-X., Zhou, Z., Lou, J., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.21411
Self-citationMAS-Gate: Unlocking Multi-Agent System Lifecycle via Node-Centric QuantificationPreprint
Lin, H., Wang, Z., Yan, M. X., Wang, P., Cao, S., Li, M., Ding, B., Zheng, J., & Qin, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.17613 · Cited by 1
“…include orchestration-trace policy optimization, orchestration-level reward modeling, counterfactual credit assignment for workflow decisions, and trainable architecture or topology search (Zhang, 2026; Chen et al., 2026b; Tsang et al., 2026; Ke et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2025a; Shi et al., 2026).”
From Agents to Edges: Paired Optimization for Multi-Agent CollaborationPreprint
Lin, F., Yu, X., Yang, Y., & Li, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.18069
HarnessNet: Feedback-driven Hierarchical Joint Harness Evolution for Multi-agent SystemsPreprint
Qiu, Z., Seneviratne, S., Xia, Y., & Halgamuge, S. K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.15221
“GPT-Swarm [45] represents language agents as optimizable graphs and updates node prompts and graph connectivity, while Agentic Super-net [46] searches over query-dependent multi-agent architectures.”
CB-Orchestrator: Adaptive Workflow Optimization for LLM Agents via Contextual Bandits
Sun, J.-H., Shang, Z.-W., Liu, Z.-P., Yang, H.-W., Xie, G.-Q., Qiu, S., & Dai, Z.-X. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.13064
“This surpasses the strongest autonomous baselines, MaAS and AFlow, by 1.58% and 2.61% respectively, and significantly outperforms other baselines.”
InfluentialCompetence-Aware Orchestration for LLM-Based Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Wang, S., Wang, Y., Yu, C., Yang, H., & Li, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.13144
AgentSWE: Can Coding Agents Build the Agent You Actually Want?Preprint
Wang, J., Qian, H., Hu, Y., Zhang, J., & Liu, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.13361
Know the Shape, Find the Fault: Topology-Conditioned Diagnosis of Multi-Agent LLM FailuresPreprint
刘新文, Pan, Z., Zhu, I., Zhang, J., Liu, X., & Wo, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.10126
RA-MoWE: Workflow-Affinity Embeddings for Query Clustering and Agentic Workflow Generation
Cheng, Q., Chen, S.-Y., Cheng, W., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.07851
“Related approaches align internal expert routing with task neighborhoods, learn query-conditioned agentic architectures, or train coordination policies (Li et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2025a; Nielsen et al., 2026).”
Decoupled Multi-Agent OrchestrationPreprint
Wu, X., & Lu, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.07556
“For example, G-D ESIGNER (Zhang et al., 2024) uses a GNN-based generator to decide which agents should communicate for a given task, while M A AS (Zhang et al., 2025a) learns a supernet containing many candidate agentic operators and activates only the parts needed for each query.”
Joint Workflow and Prompt Optimization for User Behavior SimulationPreprint
Nair, N. B., Wu, T., Yin, H., Li, H., & Wang, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.07663
“Representative approaches include AFlow [63], which uses Monte Carlo Tree Search over code-based workflows; EvoFlow [58], which applies evolutionary search to heterogeneous agents; and MaAS [59], which optimizes a probabilistic supernet over architectures.”
Fusion is the New Mutation: Bandit-Guided Evolution on Workflow Graphs
Shang, Z.-W., Sun, J.-H., Gong, M.-R., Kong, M.-Z., Qu, Z.-K., Lu, P.-C., Dong, J., Liu, Z.-P., Yang, H.-W., Xie, G.-Q., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.05284
“We also include answer ensembling with Blender (Jiang et al., 2023), dynamic agent collaboration with DyLAN (Liu et al., 2023), and automated workflow optimization with GPTSwarm (Zhuge et al., 2024), ADAS (Hu et al., 2025), MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025b), and AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025d).”
InfluentialQuality-Aware Cross-Model Computation Reuse
Cheng, J., Dai, X.-X., Liu, M.-L., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.05285
“However, LLM workflows increasingly combine multiple models (Zhang et al., 2025), so one model’s result can also serve another.”
Dynamic Harness Search: Building Multi-Agent Systems Per-Query via PredictionPreprint
Sagar, S., Li, S., Cui, H., Senanayake, R., & Arık, S. Ö. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.04137
Inherit-MAS: Test-Time Evolution of Multi-Agent Systems through Workflow and Execution InheritancePreprint
Wei, S., Li, Y., Guo, Z., & Li, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.02396
“MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a), FlowReasoner (Gao et al., 2025), and MAS-GPT (Ye et al., 2025) construct query-dependent systems.”
Zhang, S.-Y., & Chang, J.-S. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.39989
FlowMAS: Learning Multi-Agent Workflow Topology via Information-guided Generative Flow Network
Wang, H.-T., Liang, C.-J., Zhang, H.-P., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.37151
“Generation-based methods, including VAE-based G-Designer [11], MLP-based MaAS [3], and diffusion-based GTD [17], directly generate workflow topologies at inference time.”
InfluentialMoFlow: Multi-Objective Agentic Workflow Generation
Lu, Y., Lozano, A. C., Yang, X., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.38294
“…2025d; Hu et al., 2025; Wei et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2026a;b), while the few that look beyond accuracy collapse a handful of objectives, typically accuracy and cost, into a single scalar by simple weighted scalarization (Kong et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2025b; Xu et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2026).”
VidHarness: Evolving Agent Harnesses for Cost-Efficient Long Video UnderstandingPreprint
Liang, S., Wu, J., & Dong, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.38413
“…et al., 2025) programs new agents in code space with a meta agent, AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025b) applies MCTS to workflow graphs, and related efforts search modular agent spaces or pursue self-referential improvement (Shang et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025a; Yin et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2026a).”
The Right Lesson at the Right Step: Deriving Control Updates for Self-Evolving Agents
Su, Y.-H., Dong, Z.-Y., Yu, T., Deng, W.-J., Li, H., Jiang, B.-W., & Wei, P.-X. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.34988
“GEPA (Agrawal et al., 2026), AFlow (Zhang et al., 2025b), AWM (Wang et al., 2025b), and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a) run on the same model endpoint, tools, observation interface, and per-task budgets as EvoCUE, and receive the same public information: task instructions, the agent’s observations, and scores after a train…”
InfluentialBertalanič, B., & Fortuna, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.36104
Multi-Agent System Search via Active Substructure-aware Policy Optimization
Xu, B.-C., Fan, B.-W., Qian, W., Tung, L.-C., & Cui, B. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.32430
“Specifically, these policies guide operator and agent selection (Zhang et al., 2025a; Yang et al., 2026; Dang et al., 2025), communication topology generation (Zhang et al., 2025b; 2026), complete workflow generation (Ke et al., 2026; Wang et al., 2026; Nielsen et al., 2026), or higher-level…”
InfluentialRe-derivability Decides What a Staged Agent Pipeline Recovers After an Upstream FaultPreprint
Bu, T., Peng, Y., Tu, J., & 肖恒辉 (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.32802
RepoMAS: Solving Progressively Specified Tasks with Issue-Driven Multi-Agent Systems
Song, Y.-C., Chen, A.-D., Zhu, W.-X., Yang, M.-Y., & Zhao, T.-J. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.32490
“AutoAgents (Chen et al., 2023) jointly constructs task-specific agents and execution plans, while MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025a) selects multi-agent architectures according to task complexity.”
Where Should Agents Live? Energy-Memory Characterization of Agentic AI for the Edge-Cloud Continuum
Fortuna, C., Hanžel, V., Strnad, T., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.18283
“The eight orchestration architectures motivated by [26], [27], [28] nodes colored by functional class (Sec.”
Cheap Talk Stabilizes Strategic Interaction in LLM Agents
Lorè, N., Zhu, H.-G., & Heydari, B. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.16270
“Compact models are also practically relevant because repeated multi-agent inference magnifies token and compute costs (Zhang et al. 2025; Belcak et al. 2025).”
Fresh Memory, Stale Plans: Derivation Currency for Distributed LLM-Agent MemoryPreprint
Chen, E., Wang, S., & Brinton, C. G. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.03340 · Cited by 2
“Registers, replication, and consistency policies offer different guarantees and costs for exposing shared state [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26], while agent frameworks structure interaction [27, 28] and memory systems support retrieval and sharing [29, 30, 31, 7, 8].”
OptiMAS: Automatically Optimize Multi-Agent System
Cheng, Y., Liu, C., Yu, H., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.21918
“As illustrated in Figure 1, evolved MAS candidates are compiled into a structured pool, with subsequent generations inheriting from and expanding upon diverging ancestral branches Lee et al. (2026); Zhang et al. (2025b).”
Self-citationHELENA:Hierarchical Sparse Coordination over a Union of Complementary Topologies for MAS
Mao, Z.-F., Zheng, L.-Y., Shi, X.-H., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.04634
Towards Robust Tool Use in Agents via Experience-Driven Adaptive Guidance
Wang, C., Chen, H.-R., Yu, L., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.03403
“Tool-augmented LLMs. Tool-augmented LLMs substantially enhance domain expertise [4, 13], knowledge acquisition [5, 14], and interaction quality [15, 16], and are seen as a key step in the evolution from pure language models toward intelligent agents.”
Dong, J., & Lin, W. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00458
“Agent, edge, and round pruning suppress participation [3]–[6], while architecture search, routing, and subject-level decomposition select task-dependent topologies or agent compositions [7], [8], [15], [16].”
When Does LLM Orchestration Pay Off? A Controlled Evaluation of Accuracy, Cost, and Task DifficultyPreprint
Leins, N., Pelleriti, N., Gonnermann-Müller, J., & Pokutta, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00685
“Automated methods such as AFlow, MaAS, and DAAO instead search for or select workflows (Zhang et al., 2025a; Su et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2025b).”
Mathematical methods of reinforcement learning
Belomestny, D. V., Gasnikov, A. V., Gladin, E. L., Naumov, A., Rubtsov, A. N., Sapronov, Y., Tiapkin, D., & Yudin, N. E. (2026) · Успехи математических наук · doi:10.4213/rm10328
Large language model-based multi-agent systems for financial markets simulation: a survey
Liu, Q., Yao, L., Wang, Z., Yang, Y., Tang, Y. J., Cheng, D., & Jiang, C. (2026) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-026-4986-x · Cited by 2
“Building on this, frameworks such as AFLOW [82] and MaAS [83] represent agent workflows as code and utilize automated search techniques to dynamically optimize the connectivity among nodes.”
AgentSociety: Incentivizing Agentic Social Intelligence
Kesari, A. V. R., & Kesari, K. R. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.26203
“This test-time economic incentive-driven collaboration differentiates our approach from existing LLM-based multi-agent systems which primarily learn communication protocols during training [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26] and emphasize token efficiency [27].”
VeriMaAS: Automated Verilog Code Generation with Multi-Agent Reasoning
Ramamoorthy, J., Bhattaram, A., Gupta, R., et al. (2026) · International Symposium on Circuits and Systems · doi:10.1109/iscas66217.2026.11562239
“Formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem, we write [21]: Here, U ( · ) and C ( · ) denote the utility and cost of solving the subset of query-answer pairs D under a threshold configuration T and operator set O .”
InfluentialAgentCo-op: Retrieval-Based Synthesis of Interoperable Multi-Agent Workflows
Shen, S.-K., Cheng, W.-D., Wang, S., Ma, M., & Ma, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20425
Reinforced Collaboration in Multi-Agent Flow NetworksPreprint
Wang, Z., Liu, Y., & Ding, Y.-K. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12943
“This idea has been extended to agent-based textual gradients, where a global gradient is estimated from the final result and backpropagated to optimize collaborating agents [61, 10, 22, 15, 65].”
InfluentialFlowCompile: An Optimizing Compiler for Structured LLM Workflows
Li, J.-Y., Hong, Z.-W., Shen, M., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13647
Active Learning for Communication Structure Optimization in LLM-Based Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Yang, H., Dong, X., Negruţ, D., & Wu, J.-L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.05703
“We observe that communication-structure optimization of LLM-MAS can be highly sensitive to the choice of training tasks.”
Lightweight Multi-Agent Self-Evolution in Constrained Environments
Gan, J., Li, H.-Z., & Yang, J. (2026) · 2026 6th International Conference on Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems Engineering (MLISE) · doi:10.1109/mlise70044.2026.11607626
Human-in-the-Loop Learning Systems for High-Risk Decision Domains
Durairaj, S., Kumar, V., & Padmavathy, E. K. (2026) · International Conference on Educational Technology Management (ICETM) · doi:10.1109/icetm68138.2026.11648111
“Moreover, social alignment, which implies that agents are respectful toward cultural diversity and pluralistic values is an actively developing sphere of research because the existing ethical paradigm that fits all does not always consider the geographical specifics of the world population [13].”
Sun, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.27358
“The MaAS framework [Zhang et al., 2025] introduced automated architecture search for LLM-based multi-agent systems, treating agent topology as a learnable hyperparameter.”
InfluentialGharzeddine, L., & Saab, S., Jr. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22820
The impact of multi-agent debate protocols on debate quality: a controlled case studyPreprint
Marandi, R. Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.28813 · Cited by 1
“…agents (Liu et al., 2024), competitive debate in software engineering (Li et al., 2025), debate-style evaluation (Chan et al., 2023), automated protocol and topology optimization over agentic workflow spaces (Zhang et al., 2025, 2024), and adaptive self-improving agents (Shinn et al., 2023).”
HyEvo: Self-Evolving Hybrid Agentic Workflows for Efficient ReasoningPreprint
Xu, B., Ye, Y., Shen, C., Zhou, Y., Chen, C., & Chen, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.19639 · Cited by 1
“We used the performance results reported in [ Zhang et al. , 2025b ] .”
InfluentialAbstract-Then-Concretize Automated Design of Multi-Agent System
Nguyen, T.-H., Tran, H.-T., Trinh, Q.-H., Pham, T.-T., Nguyen, T.-T., Nguyen, S., & Vo, H. D. (2025) · International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/kse68178.2025.11309450
“Following the procedure in existing work [9], [14], [17], for M ASAC and all baselines, is evaluated on the same set of benchmark queries.”
Towards Scalable Oversight via Partitioned Human Supervision
Yin, R., Ishida, T., & Sugiyama, M. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.22500
“More recent work has shifted toward automated agent discovery , in which LLMs themselves are used to generate, refine, and optimize workflow structures (Hu et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025a; 2026; 2025b), but required ground-truth supervision to construct a fitness score.”
ARM: Discovering Agentic Reasoning Modules for Generalizable Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Yao, B., Malay, S. K. R., & Yadav, V. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05746 · Cited by 2
“Approaches like ADAS (Hu et al., 2025), Aflow (Zhang et al., 2025b), and Flow-Reasoner (Gao et al., 2025) aim to automatically discover the optimal agent roles and their interaction topology for a given task domain.”
ChemAmp: Amplified Chemistry Tools via Composable Agents
Li, Z., Chang, P., Jin, X., Zhou, Z., He, Q., Liang, J., Cao, F., Yinghui, X., & Qi, Y. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.52 · Cited by 10
“ChemToolAgent (Yu et al., 2025) et al., 2024a), GPTSwarm (Zhuge et al., 2024), Aflow (Zhang et al., 2024c), and MaAS (Zhang et al., 2025) automate workflow refinement after-initial manual design.”
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
