Artificial collectives of specialists and generalists excel at different tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20877v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 19:08:36 GMT
• Title: Artificial collectives of specialists and generalists excel at different tasks
• Abstract summary: We show how agent interpretive abilities, rationality bounds, and task qualities interact to shape collective performance.<n>Agents range from specialists, with narrow interpretive abilities, to generalists, with broad ones.<n>Findings suggest that multi-agent design could benefit from matching interpretive networks to both task demands and agents' computational limits.
• Score: 1.7266027274320124
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Collective artificial intelligence, where multiple agents work on shared tasks, holds potential to solve expansive problems in fields from medicine to collective governance. But while prescriptive engineering solutions abound, we lack descriptive scientific understanding of artificial collectives, and therefore principles for how to design resource efficient multi-agent systems. Through systematic experiments with optimizing agents, we characterize how agent interpretive abilities, rationality bounds, and task qualities interact to shape collective performance. Agents range from specialists, with narrow interpretive abilities, to generalists, with broad ones. Collectives of specialists correspond to sparse, centralized networks, while collectives of generalists correspond to dense, decentralized ones. We show that interpretive network properties have small performance effects on average (0.07 standard deviations of performance). However, for specific task qualities, these effects are 4.5 times larger (0.33 sd) and can reach much higher for certain task qualities (1.84 sd). This leads collectives of generalists to perform better on tasks that involve generating, choosing, and coordinating, while collectives of specialists with a few generalist mediators perform better on tasks that involve negotiating. Rationality bounds then moderate these relationships. At loose bounds, specialists outperform generalists through more effective sampling of high-dimensional decision spaces. At tight bounds, generalists outperform specialists through better gradient estimation. A fundamental trade-off between performance and convergence speed emerges at moderate bounds. These findings suggest that multi-agent design could benefit from matching interpretive networks to both task demands and agents' computational limits, with implications for the efficiency and energy costs of multi-agent systems.

Related papers

• Scaling Behavior of Single LLM-Driven Multi-Agent Systems [5.2324118961669575]
  Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) promise to tackle complex tasks through collaborative intelligence.<n>This paper systematically investigates how the performance of a homogeneous MAS evolves as the number of agents increases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T09:57:49Z)
• Beyond Task Performance: A Metric-Based Analysis of Sequential Cooperation in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Destructive Foraging [41.439643274006364]
  This work addresses the problem of analyzing cooperation in heterogeneous multi-agent systems.<n>The proposed suite of metrics is structured into three main categories that jointly provide a multilevel characterization of cooperation.<n>They have been validated in a realistic destructive foraging scenario inspired by dynamic aquatic surface cleaning using heterogeneous autonomous vehicles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T09:39:24Z)
• Multi-Agent Teams Hold Experts Back [37.015657067301355]
  We study whether self-organizing LLM teams achieve strong synergy.<n>We find that -- unlike human teams -- LLM teams consistently fail to match their expert agent's performance.<n>We show that expert leveraging, rather than identification, is the primary bottleneck.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T04:34:36Z)
• Emergent Coordination in Multi-Agent Language Models [2.504366738288215]
  We introduce an information-theoretic framework to test whether multi-agent systems show signs of higher-order structure.<n>This information decomposition lets us measure whether dynamical emergence is present in multi-agent LLM systems.<n>We apply our framework to experiments using a simple guessing game without direct agent communication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T11:26:41Z)
• Beyond Brainstorming: What Drives High-Quality Scientific Ideas? Lessons from Multi-Agent Collaboration [59.41889496960302]
  This paper investigates whether structured multi-agent discussions can surpass solitary ideation.<n>We propose a cooperative multi-agent framework for generating research proposals.<n>We employ a comprehensive protocol with agent-based scoring and human review across dimensions such as novelty, strategic vision, and integration depth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T15:59:18Z)
• Predicting Multi-Agent Specialization via Task Parallelizability [8.465921582175426]
  We present a closed-form bound that predicts when specialization improves performance depending on task regimes and team size.<n>We validate our model on two standard MARL benchmarks that represent opposite benchmarks.<n>Three follow-up experiments in Overcooked-AI demonstrate that the model works in environments with more complex spatial and resource bottlenecks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T21:33:48Z)
• Scaling Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Collaboration [72.8998796426346]
  Recent breakthroughs in large language model-driven autonomous agents have revealed that multi-agent collaboration often surpasses each individual through collective reasoning.<n>This study explores whether the continuous addition of collaborative agents can yield similar benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T11:02:04Z)
• AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors [93.38830440346783]
  We propose a multi-agent framework framework that can collaboratively adjust its composition as a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts system. Our experiments demonstrate that framework framework can effectively deploy multi-agent groups that outperform a single agent. In view of these behaviors, we discuss some possible strategies to leverage positive ones and mitigate negative ones for improving the collaborative potential of multi-agent groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T16:47:11Z)
• Generalization in Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems [49.16349318581611]
  We study the theoretical underpinnings of Combinatorial Generalization (CG) for cooperative multi-agent systems. CG is a highly desirable trait for autonomous systems as it can increase their utility and deployability across a wide range of applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T21:39:56Z)
• Learning to Incentivize Other Learning Agents [73.03133692589532]
  We show how to equip RL agents with the ability to give rewards directly to other agents, using a learned incentive function. Such agents significantly outperform standard RL and opponent-shaping agents in challenging general-sum Markov games. Our work points toward more opportunities and challenges along the path to ensure the common good in a multi-agent future.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-10T20:12:38Z)
• Randomized Entity-wise Factorization for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [59.62721526353915]
  Multi-agent settings in the real world often involve tasks with varying types and quantities of agents and non-agent entities. Our method aims to leverage these commonalities by asking the question: What is the expected utility of each agent when only considering a randomly selected sub-group of its observed entities?''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-07T18:28:41Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.