AnyMAC: Cascading Flexible Multi-Agent Collaboration via Next-Agent Prediction
Open accessAbstract
Recent progress in large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent collaboration highlights the power of structured communication in enabling collective intelligence. However, existing methods largely rely on static or graph-based inter-agent topologies, lacking the potential adaptability and flexibility in communication. In this work, we propose a new framework that rethinks multi-agent coordination through a sequential structure rather than a graph structure, offering a significantly larger topology space for multi-agent communication. Our method focuses on two key directions: (1) Next-Agent Prediction, which selects the most suitable agent role at each step, and (2) Next-Context Selection (NCS), which enables each agent to selectively access relevant information from any previous step. Together, these components construct task-adaptive communication pipelines that support both role flexibility and global information flow. Extensive evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our approach achieves superior performance while substantially reducing communication overhead.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
AgentDrop applies stochastic dropout to nodes and edges to improve robustness.
“AgentDrop (Wang et al., 2025) applies stochastic dropout to nodes and edges to improve robustness”
From Understanding the Information Propagation Effects of Communication Topologies in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025
Existing learnable communication graph methods generally treat sparsity as a cost-saving mechanism without explicitly analyzing when or why sparse or dense topologies lead to better multi-agent outcomes.
“While these methods improve computational efficiency and economic viability by learning compact and adaptive communication structures, they generally treat sparsity as a cost-saving mechanism without explicitly analyzing when or why sparse or dense topologies lead to better multi-agent outcomes.”
From Understanding the Information Propagation Effects of Communication Topologies in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025
Cites
Solving General Arithmetic Word Problems
Roy, S., & Roth, D. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1608.01413 · Cited by 275
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shen, X., Liu, Y., Dai, Y., Wang, Y., Miao, R., Tan, Y., Pan, S., & Wang, X. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.23352 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“To better assess the generalizability of our framework, future work should explore more diverse task domains, such as real-world decision-making and open-domain dialogue.”
- Authors
- Wang, S., Tan, Z., Chen, Z., Zhou, S., Chen, T., & Li, J.
- ORCID
- Chen, Tianlong
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.17784
- OpenAlex
- W6891934278
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- multi-agent systems, communication cost reduction, structured communication
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