This study shows that multi-agent design is fundamentally an information-bottleneck optimization problem, and explains when bounded inter-agent communication helps or hurts, and observes that MAS consistently helps when relays are near-sufficient, especially for weaker models.
Abstract
LLM powered multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a promising paradigm for complex tasks. However, their advantages over single-agent systems (SAS) remain unclear, with performance varying inconsistently across settings. Here, we provide an information bottleneck perspective on elucidating the differences between MAS and SAS. Specifically, our key observation is that a SAS accumulates its full reasoning trace in one shared context, while a MAS uses isolated local contexts connected by bounded relay messages. We show that, under infinite relay bandwidth, any SAS can be simulated by a MAS that transmits the full upstream context. Thus, the nontrivial advantage of MAS arises under bounded relays, where compression introduces a fundamental trade-off: reducing redundant context can improve efficiency, but may also incur loss of task-relevant information. We formalize this trade-off as an information bottleneck controlled by an effective parameter $\beta$, which captures how the balance shifts with model capability, and shows that MAS gains arise when context reduction outweighs relay information loss. We conduct 18 controlled experiments across five benchmarks and three model scales to validate our theoretical studies. We observe that MAS consistently helps when relays are near-sufficient, especially for weaker models. In contrast, MAS gains shrink or reverse when relays incur information loss, especially for stronger models that can already extract useful information from redundant context and thus gain little from compression. Our study shows that multi-agent design is fundamentally an information-bottleneck optimization problem. This perspective explains when bounded inter-agent communication helps or hurts.
The collaboration tax is formulated as the team-decentralisation loss of a two-player cooperative game with private information, with two propositions characterising its sign and its equivalence to a max-superadditivity violation.
Wei-Xiang Sun, Zehong Wang, Hong Huang et al.· 0 citations
Efficiency is increasingly important for Large Language Model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS), as larger models and more agents introduce substantial execution costs. Recent methods aim to make MAS cheaper by pruning agents, removing communication edges, or searching for compact structures. However, we argue that existing evaluations may overestimate their true ability to improve MAS efficiency. Reported gains are often measured under method-specific prompts and starting topologies, making them difficult to attribute to the proposed structural changes. Moreover, many reported successes appear in non-MAS-demanding settings, where a single agent or a randomly pruned system can already preserve strong performance. To study these issues, we introduce a controlled and MAS-demanding diagnostic benchmark for representative MAS efficiency methods. We evaluate methods under a shared backbone model, agent registry, and runtime, across controlled variations in topology, scale, depth, and tool use. Our analysis shows that many reported gains are setup-dependent and may arise from structural collapse, disabled tool pathways, or starting systems where random pruning already preserves accuracy, rather than robust improvements in MAS efficiency.
Jiamu Zhang, Ling-Xi Zhang, Peng-Jun Lu et al.· 0 citations
Does multi-agent LLM interaction help or hurt? Some work reports gains from debate (Du et al., 2024), critique loops (Chen et al., 2025), and mixture-of-agents synthesis (Wang et al., 2025), while other work finds that interaction adds cost without improving quality under equal budgets (Tran&Kiela, 2026; Xu et al., 2026; Jarrett et al., 2025), or that independent sampling already captures multi-agent gains (Li et al., 2024). We argue this contradiction partly reflects a missing distinction, because not all multi-agent communication is equal. Different model families find structurally different solutions, but when agents read each other's complete outputs, their proposals converge within one round, erasing the diversity that motivates using multiple models. We call this the interaction tax. We test 11 verifier-scored optimization tasks under matched budgets and find that full-solution interaction is a weak default. Independent proposal generation avoids this collapse. Full-solution interaction mainly makes agents stay close to the first solution they see instead of trying different approaches, and critique helps only if the violated rule is easy for the LLM to find and fix. These results suggest that multi-agent performance depends less on the number of agents than on the information they exchange, and interaction helps only when agents share the right information at the right time.
Summer Eunhyung Ann, Haokun Liu, Chen-Hao Tan· 1 citation
This paper develops a multi-agent reinforcement learning-based (MARL) delegation training that enables agents to make sequential delegation decisions while minimizing the total execution cost and introduces two new frameworks for collaboration and delegation in multi-agent systems.
Ziqing Lu, Avinash Mudireddy, Sarra M. Alqahtani et al.· 0 citations
The rapid advancement of large language models and single-agent harnesses has reshaped the landscape of autonomous systems, raising a critical question of when multi-agent collaboration offers genuine value. As individual agent capabilities continue to scale, multi-agent collaboration faces diminishing returns while incurring growing context overhead. Through systematic analysis, we delineate the capability boundaries of multi-agent collaboration relative to single-agent alternatives, showing that it confers systematic benefits specifically in long-horizon tasks with sparse dependencies, while single-agent harnesses remain superior in tightly coupled, sequential workflows. Building on these insights, we propose SAIGE, a lightweight multi-agent collaboration mechanism based on Semantic-Aware Incremental Graph Evolution. SAIGE models collaboration as a dynamically evolving graph, where nodes are agent instances spawned on demand and edges encode semantic dependencies established through content-based information retrieval. Experiments on long-horizon, complex task benchmarks show that SAIGE achieves a favorable trade-off between context efficiency and task performance, and that scaling the agent pool or deepening the recursion level does not consistently improve outcomes. Our findings suggest that multi-agent superiority is bounded by task structure rather than universal, and that more agents do not necessarily make a system more intelligent.
Yizhen Yuan, Yi-Bo Wu, Yi-Han Zhang et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
