Skip to content
Review

ArcticSwarm: Deferring Early Consensus in Long-Horizon Multi-Agent Research

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 38 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The results show that restricting peer reads during evidence gathering and strengthening commitment boundaries before a hypothesis is shared can broaden search and improve long-horizon multi-agent deep research.

Abstract

Multi-agent systems have shown strong performance in domains with reliable verifiers such as coding, where multi-parallel candidate generation selected by a verifier is effective. However, such pipelines would not generalize to open-ended, long-horizon research tasks without a verifier. While majority voting or self-consistency is often used to reach consensus as a proxy verifier, parallel agents repeatedly explore the same evidence, while access to peers'partial findings cause search to converge on an early candidate before alternatives are tested. We present ArcticSwarm, a multi-agent research architecture that separates evidence gathering from evidence integration. Subagents publish findings to a shared bulletin board, while gated isolation lets selected search tasks maintain their own prior, preventing early consensus. Structured review at three commitment boundaries enforce only confident candidates to be propagated. As a result, ArcticSwarm reaches 82.6% on the full BrowseComp-Plus set with the open-weight Qwen 3.5-27B model, compared with 78.8% without gated isolation and 74.5% additionally with structured review disabled, outperforming aligned baseline MiroFlow runs (70.6%). Extending to live-web BrowseComp, ArcticSwarm reaches 73.6% with GPT-5, which is well above the reported provider system (54.9%) and MiroFlow (63.4%). Overall, the results show that restricting peer reads during evidence gathering and strengthening commitment boundaries before a hypothesis is shared can broaden search and improve long-horizon multi-agent deep research.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

LatticeMind: A Conflict-Aware Memory Primitive for Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent LLM systems often fail not for lack of candidate answers, but because they have no persistent mechanism for deciding which incompatible claim should currently be trusted. Majority vote, debate, and judge-based selection choose an output without recording which claim wins, which is contested, or why a later...

Heng Zhou, Lian Zhang, Yutao Fan et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Sep 2026

AgentWorld: Benchmarking Long-Horizon Collaboration of Multi-agent LLMs

Existing multi-agent benchmarks primarily test in competitive settings, short-horizon interactions under 20 steps, or simply aggregate individual performance, failing to isolate and highlight genuine collaboration capabilities of LLM-based agents. We introduce AgentWorld, a benchmark of 100 human-annotated tasks (with...

Raphael Shu, Yu-Sen Zhang, Y. Cho et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Sep 2026

MASTraceBench: Diagnosing Collaboration Gains through Proposal Trajectories in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise in complex problem solving. As MAS methods diversify, systematic evaluation becomes increasingly challenging. However, existing benchmarks largely focus on final outcomes, leaving unclear how collaboration gains arise, are preserved, or are lost. To address this li...

Ya-Peng Li, Song-Ze Li, Shuang Yu et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

ICMAPE: In-Context Multiagent Pure Exploration

In some multi-agent systems, the quantity to be optimized is not an externally specified reward but the information acquired about unknown properties of the environment as done in active sequential hypothesis testing (ASHT) problems. However, the ASHT literature tends to focus on finite single-agent problems with well-...

Xin-Yi Hu, Alessio Russo, Aldo Pacchiano · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.