Exploring Advanced LLM Multi-Agent Systems Based on Blackboard Architecture
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we propose to incorporate the blackboard architecture into LLM multi-agent systems (MASs) so that (1) agents with various roles can share all the information and others' messages during the whole problem-solving process, (2) agents that will take actions are selected based on the current content of the blackboard, and (3) the selection and execution round is repeated until a consensus is reached on the blackboard. We develop the first implementation of this proposal and conduct experiments on commonsense knowledge, reasoning and mathematical datasets. The results show that our system can be competitive with the SOTA static and dynamic MASs by achieving the best average performance, and at the same time manage to spend less tokens. Our proposal has the potential to enable complex and dynamic problem-solving where well-defined structures or workflows are unavailable.
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?
Blackboard-based multi-agent methods write raw or lightly structured messages to the board and still route coordination through a selection step or a central poster.
“the blackboard-based methods write raw or lightly structured messages to the board and still route coordination through a selection step or a central poster.”
From Decentralized Multi-Agent Systems with Shared Context (2026) · cites this paper as Han and Zhang, 2025
Cites
Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity
Zhang, H., Cui, Z., Chen, J., Wang, X., Zhang, Q., Wang, Z., Wu, D., & Hu, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.08788 · cited 1×
“For static MAS MultiPersona, Exchange-of-Thought, and Chateval, we utilize the implementation from(Zhang et al., 2025c).”
Multi-agent Architecture Search via Agentic Supernet
Zhang, G., Niu, L., Fang, J., Wang, K., Bai, L., & Wang, X. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04180 · cited 3×
“Three autonomous MAS methods are implemented in accordance with the original implementation(Zhang et al., 2025d; Zhuge et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025a).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Decentralized Multi-Agent Systems with Shared Context
Mao, Y., Gu, J., Chauhan, A., Zhang, Q., Kang, H., & Mirhoseini, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.10662
“Centralized MAS relies on a main agent to assign subcontexts, spawn sub-agents, and integrate returned results through a synchronous scatter–gather loop, creating a bottleneck where progress is gated by both the central merge step and the slowest worker.”
Influential
- Authors
- Han, B., & Zhang, S.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2507.01701
- OpenAlex
- W4417183146
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 3
- 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 › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- blackboard architecture, agent selection, consensus reaching, commonsense reasoning, mathematical problem solving, token efficiency
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
