CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationGame Theory and Voting SystemsGame Theory and Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

When Should We Orchestrate Multiple Agents?

Open access
Bhatt, Umang, Kapoor, Sanyam, Upadhyay, Mihir, Sucholutsky, Ilia, Quinzan, Francesco, Collins, Katherine M., Weller, Adrian, Wilson, Andrew Gordon, Zafar, Muhammad Bilal·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2503.13577arXiv 2503.13577
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Strategies for orchestrating the interactions between multiple agents, both human and artificial, can wildly overestimate performance and underestimate the cost of orchestration. We design a framework to orchestrate agents under realistic conditions, such as inference costs or availability constraints. We show theoretically that orchestration is only effective if there are performance or cost differentials between agents. We then empirically demonstrate how orchestration between multiple agents can be helpful for selecting agents in a simulated environment, picking a learning strategy in the infamous Rogers' Paradox from social science, and outsourcing tasks to other agents during a question-answer task in a user study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.13577

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Automated orchestration enhances overall performance.

    “automated orchestration enhances overall performance”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [72]

    Section 5 (p. 8) reports improved user performance when agents were orchestrated through suggestions. But the Abstract (p. 1) says orchestration is effective only under certain conditions, and the Conclusion (p. 8) says it is not clear that orchestration is helpful outright. The unqualified claim that automated orchestration enhances overall performance overstates those findings. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Well-designed orchestration improves system effectiveness by leveraging distinct agent capabilities.

    “Performance implications indicate that well-designed orchestration improves system effectiveness by leveraging distinct agent capabilities”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [72]

  • Human users frequently struggle with effective agent selection from available sets.

    “human users frequently struggle with effective agent selection from available sets”

    From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [72]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Azizi, M. J., Vayanos, P., Wilder, B., Rice, E., and Tambe, M. Designing fair, efficient, and interpretable policies for prioritizing homeless youth for housing resources. In Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research: 15th International Conference, CPAIOR 2018, Delft, The Netherlands, June 26-29, 2018, Proceedings 15 , pp. 35-51. Springer, 2018.
  2. Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., and Weld, D. Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of AI explanations on complementary team performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1-16, 2021.
  3. Bhatt, U., Chen, V., Collins, K. M., Kamalaruban, P., Kallina, E., Weller, A., and Talwalkar, A. Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06701 , 2023. · arXiv
  4. Charusaie, M.-A., Mozannar, H., Sontag, D., and Samadi, S. Sample efficient learning of predictors that complement humans. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 2972-3005. PMLR, 2022.
  5. Collins, K. M., Chen, V., Sucholutsky, I., Kirk, H. R., Sadek, M., Sargeant, H., Talwalkar, A., Weller, A., and Bhatt, U. Modulating language model experiences through frictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12804 , 2024a. · arXiv
  6. Collins, K. M., Sucholutsky, I., Bhatt, U., Chandra, K., Wong, L., Lee, M., Zhang, C. E., Zhi-Xuan, T., Ho, M., Mansinghka, V., et al. Building machines that learn and think with people. Nature human behaviour , 8(10):18511863, 2024b.
  7. Collins, K. M., Bhatt, U., and Sucholutsky, I. Revisiting rogers' paradox in the context of human-ai interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10476 , 2025. · arXiv
  8. Cortes, C., DeSalvo, G., Gentile, C., Mohri, M., and Yang, S. Online learning with abstention. In International conference on machine learning , pp. 1059-1067. PMLR, 2018.
  9. Fuchs, A., Passarella, A., and Conti, M. Optimizing delegation between human and ai collaborative agents. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , pp. 245-260. Springer, 2023.
  10. F¨ ugener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., and Ketter, W. Cognitive challenges in human-artificial intelligence collaboration: Investigating the path toward productive delegation. Information Systems Research , 33(2):678-696, 2022.
  11. Gao, R., Saar-Tsechansky, M., De-Arteaga, M., Han, L., Lee, M. K., and Lease, M. Human-AI collaboration with bandit feedback. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI21 , pp. 1722-1728. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2021.
  12. Gao, R., Saar-Tsechansky, M., De-Arteaga, M., Han, L., Sun, W., Lee, M. K., and Lease, M. Learning complementary policies for human-ai teams. Conference on Information Systems and Technology (CIST) , 2022.
  13. Guo, Z., Wu, Y., Hartline, J. D., and Hullman, J. A decision theoretic framework for measuring ai reliance. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pp. 221-236, 2024.
  14. Hamman, J. R. and Mart´ ınez-Carrasco, M. A. Managing uncertainty: An experiment on delegation and team selection. Organization Science , 34(6):2272-2295, 2023.
  15. Hemmer, P., Schellhammer, S., V¨ ossing, M., Jakubik, J., and Satzger, G. Forming effective human-ai teams: building machine learning models that complement the capabilities of multiple experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07948 , 2022. · arXiv
  16. Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D. X., and Steinhardt, J. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. ArXiv , abs/2009.03300, 2020. · arXiv
  17. Holstein, K. and Olsen, J. K. Human-ai co-orchestration: the role of artificial intelligence in orchestration. In Handbook of artificial intelligence in education , pp. 309-321. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023.
  18. Jaech, A., Kalai, A., Lerer, A., Richardson, A., El-Kishky, A., Low, A., Helyar, A., Madry, A., Beutel, A., Carney, A., et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720 , 2024. · arXiv
  19. Keswani, V., Lease, M., and Kenthapadi, K. Towards unbiased and accurate deferral to multiple experts. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pp. 154-165, 2021.
  20. Kupfer, C., Prassl, R., Fleiß, J., Malin, C., Thalmann, S., and Kubicek, B. Check the box! how to deal with automation bias in ai-based personnel selection. Frontiers in Psychology , 14:1-13, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1075006. · DOI
  21. Lai, V., Carton, S., Bhatnagar, R., Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., and Tan, C. Human-ai collaboration via conditional delegation: A case study of content moderation. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 1-18, 2022.
  22. Lai, V., Chen, C., Smith-Renner, A., Liao, Q. V., and Tan, C. Towards a science of human-ai decision making: An overview of design space in empirical human-subject studies. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pp. 13691385, 2023.
  23. Linhart, H. and Zucchini, W. Model selection. John Wiley &Sons, 1986.
  24. Lubars, B. and Tan, C. Ask not what ai can do, but what ai should do: Towards a framework of task delegability. Advances in neural information processing systems , 32, 2019.
  25. Milewski, A. E. and Lewis, S. H. Delegating to software agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 46(4):485-500, 1997.
  26. Mozannar, H. and Sontag, D. Consistent estimators for learning to defer to an expert. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 7076-7087. PMLR, 2020.
  27. Mozannar, H., Satyanarayan, A., and Sontag, D. Teaching humans when to defer to a classifier via exemplars. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, pp. 5323-5331, 2022.
  28. Murphy, K. P. Probabilistic machine learning: an introduction . MIT press, 2022.
  29. Rasal, S. and Hauer, E. Navigating complexity: Orchestrated problem solving with multi-agent llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16713 , 2024. · arXiv
  30. Riquelme, C., Puigcerver, J., Mustafa, B., Neumann, M., Jenatton, R., Susano Pinto, A., Keysers, D., and Houlsby, N. Scaling vision with sparse mixture of experts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34: 8583-8595, 2021.
  31. Rogers, A. R. Does biology constrain culture? American anthropologist , 90(4):819-831, 1988.
  32. Steyvers, M., Tejeda, H., Kerrigan, G., and Smyth, P. Bayesian modeling of human-ai complementarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 119(11): e2111547119, 2022.
  33. Sucholutsky, I., Collins, K. M., Malaviya, M., Jacoby, N., Liu, W., Sumers, T. R., Korakakis, M., Bhatt, U., Ho, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., et al. Representational alignment supports effective machine teaching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04302 , 2024. · arXiv
  34. Sunstein, C. R. Choosing not to choose. Duke Law Journal , 64(1):25-53, 2014.
  35. Swaroop, S., Buc ¸inca, Z., Gajos, K. Z., and Doshi-Velez, F. Accuracy-time tradeoffs in ai-assisted decision making under time pressure. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pp. 138-154, 2024.
  36. Tjuatja, L., Chen, V., Wu, T., Talwalkwar, A., and Neubig, G. Do llms exhibit human-like response biases? a case study in survey design. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 12:1011-1026, 2024.
  37. Touvron, H. et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 , 2023. · arXiv
  38. Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A., and Malone, T. When combinations of humans and ai are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour , pp. 1-11, 2024.
  39. von Wedel, P. and Hagist, C. Physicians' preferences and willingness to pay for artificial intelligence-based assistance tools: a discrete choice experiment among german radiologists. BMC Health Services Research , 22(1):398, 2022.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bhatt, U., Kapoor, S., Upadhyay, M., Sucholutsky, I., Quinzan, F., Collins, K. M., Weller, A., Wilson, A. G., & Zafar, M. B.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2503.13577
arXiv
2503.13577
OpenAlex
W6948306875
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
Keywords
agent orchestration, multi-agent systems, human-AI interaction, agent selection, inference cost, availability constraints, cost-performance trade-off, question answering, task outsourcing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review