Goal-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Collaboration for Long-Horizon Tasks
Open accessAbstract
LLM-based agents are increasingly used to complete complex, long-horizon tasks without human intervention. To make progress toward the task goal, agents need to perform different duties, such as planning and verification, when needed. To understand how single agents manage these duties during long-horizon execution, we conduct a preliminary study. Our analysis shows that verification has the strongest association with task success, but often occurs late, leaving limited opportunities for correction. We also find that the proportion of duty-relevant information decreases as records from different duties accumulate in a shared context. These findings lead us to examine whether multi-agent systems (MAS) can address these problems by assigning duties to agents with separate contexts. Our analysis shows that this separation alone is insufficient. Agents can lose track of the overall goal and repeat prior investigations. They may also lack necessary background while receiving irrelevant information from others. To maintain goal awareness and coordinate collaboration as task needs change, we propose Goal-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Collaboration (GAD). It uses a growing execution graph to organize subtasks and their dependencies. To keep agents focused on their goals, each context retains the original instruction and the assigned task's goal and acceptance conditions. To adapt collaboration and information sharing during execution, agents can divide tasks into subtasks and specify dependencies based on execution evidence. These dependencies guide when agents work and which results they receive. Verification and recovery check subtask results and full task completion against their goals, providing feedback for repair when checks fail.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Shen, X., Yan, L., Wang, S., Wu, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., & Ren, J.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Baidu (China) (CN)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2610.39193
- OpenAlex
- W7224814862
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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
- agent cooperation, long-horizon tasks, LLM agents, goal awareness, execution graph, task recovery, information sharing, agent coordination
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