PreprintCited by 3Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationReinforcement Learning in RoboticsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Understanding Agent Scaling in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems via Diversity

Open access
Yang, Yingxuan, Qu, Chengrui, Wen, Muning, Shi, Laixi, Wen, Ying, Zhang, Weinan, Wierman, Adam, Gu, Shangding·2026·arXiv

Abstract

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a promising approach to tackle complex tasks that are difficult for individual LLMs. A natural strategy is to scale performance by increasing the number of agents; however, we find that such scaling exhibits strong diminishing returns in homogeneous settings, while introducing heterogeneity (e.g., different models, prompts, or tools) continues to yield substantial gains. This raises a fundamental question: what limits scaling, and why does diversity help? We present an information-theoretic framework showing that MAS performance is bounded by the intrinsic task uncertainty, not by agent count. We derive architecture-agnostic bounds demonstrating that improvements depend on how many effective channels the system accesses. Homogeneous agents saturate early because their outputs are strongly correlated, whereas heterogeneous agents contribute complementary evidence. We further introduce $K^*$, an effective channel count that quantifies the number of effective channels without ground-truth labels. Empirically, we show that heterogeneous configurations consistently outperform homogeneous scaling: 2 diverse agents can match or exceed the performance of 16 homogeneous agents. Our results provide principled guidelines for building efficient and robust MAS through diversity-aware design. Code and Dataset are available at the link: https://github.com/SafeRL-Lab/Agent-Scaling.

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.2602.03794

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Increasing the number of engineers does not monotonically improve performance.

    “We find that increasing the number of engineers does not monotonically improve the performance, which align with the results in [Yang et al., 2026].”

    From Effective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2026

Self-check

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

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

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Dang, Y., Qian, C., Luo, X., Fan, J., Xie, Z., Shi, R., Chen, W., Yang, C., Che, X., Tian, Y., Xiong, X., Han, L., Liu, Z., and Sun, M. Multi-agent collaboration via evolving orchestration. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025.
  2. Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Critch, A., Li, J., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. Aligning ai with shared human values. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021a.
  3. Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021b.
  4. Khan, A., Hughes, J., Valentine, D., Ruis, L., Sachan, K., Radhakrishnan, A., Grefenstette, E., Bowman, S. R., Rocktäschel, T., and Perez, E. Debating with more per- suasive LLMs leads to more truthful answers. In Proceed- ings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24, 2024.
  5. Qian, C., Xie, Z., Wang, Y., Liu, W., Zhu, K., Xia, H., Dang, Y., Du, Z., Chen, W., Yang, C., Liu, Z., and Sun, M. Scaling large language model-based multi-agent collab- oration. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025.
  6. Wu, Q., Bansal, G., Zhang, J., Wu, Y., Li, B., Zhu, E., Jiang, L., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Liu, J., Awadallah, A. H., White, R. W., Burger, D., and Wang, C. Autogen: Enabling next- gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversations. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024.
  7. Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., and Choi, Y. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sen- tence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019.
  8. Zhao, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Wu, S., and Zou, J. Sirius: Self-improving multi-agent systems via bootstrapped rea- soning. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Y., Qu, C., Wen, M., Shi, L., Wen, Y., Zhang, W., Wierman, A., & Gu, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7127609277
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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 › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
multi-agent systems, agent diversity, heterogeneous agents, homogeneous agents, information-theoretic limits, task uncertainty, output correlation, LLM agents, diminishing returns

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