Loop-Back Authority in LLM Agent Teams: A Paired Experiment on Flat and Hierarchical Coordination

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14767v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 19:58:54 GMT
• Title: Loop-Back Authority in LLM Agent Teams: A Paired Experiment on Flat and Hierarchical Coordination
• Abstract summary: Hierarchical orchestration, in which a Manager agent reviews worker output and can send it back for revision, is the default coordination pattern in production multi-agent LLM frameworks.<n>We present a paired experiment that holds five LLM agents, their roles, prompts, tools, models, and data fixed and varies one link: whether the Manager may reject a worker's output and oblige a revision.<n>Across 43 paired products and 86 runs of a business-intelligence reporting task, a five-model judge panel and a deterministic specification check score every report.<n>The flat organization scores higher on Utility (d = 0.42, p = 0.009) and
• Score: 0.09999629695552194
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Hierarchical orchestration, in which a Manager agent reviews worker output and can send it back for revision, is the default coordination pattern in production multi-agent LLM frameworks. Classical organizational theory predicts that the authority link speeds convergence on decisive output; work on sycophancy and Degeneration-of-Thought predicts that authoritative critique makes LLM output worse. Prior comparisons vary whole frameworks on tasks with checkable answers, leaving the authority link untested on open-ended work. We present a paired experiment that holds five LLM agents, their roles, prompts, tools, models, and data fixed and varies one link: whether the Manager may reject a worker's output and oblige a revision. Across 43 paired products and 86 runs of a business-intelligence reporting task, a five-model judge panel and a deterministic specification check score every report. The flat organization scores higher on Utility (d = 0.42, p = 0.009) and on Writing Clarity (d = 0.34, p = 0.030); the classical prediction fails. The reports are the same length, but hierarchical reports hedge 53% more, each revision loop is associated with a 0.14-point drop in Writing Clarity, and the hierarchical Writer's first draft is indistinguishable from the flat report: the gap opens inside the revision loop. Specification accuracy is at ceiling in both organizations, and the supervisory tier costs 51.5% more tokens for no quality gain. A supervisor pays for itself when it can verify and becomes a liability when it can only opine.

Related papers

• Codebook Agent: Amortized Topology Design for LLM Multi-Agent Systems [67.04448659688579]
  We develop a query-independent 16-entry codebook that ranks the top decoded candidates in a single batched forward pass.<n>With no iterative search and no message passing at test time, Codebook Agent is the most accurate method on all six benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-02T08:10:22Z)
• Right-Sizing LLM-Agent Decomposition in VAT Determination: A Pilot Controlled Sweep [0.3384279376065155]
  This pilot studies that choice on bounded cross-border VAT determination with reverse charge.<n>We hold the activity surface fixed (subtasks, tools, I/O schemas, validation checks, orchestrator, base model, and merge policy)<n>The program spans 4,400 runs: a 40-case, five-repeat main sweep, matched-token arms separating prompt-budget from agent-count effects, and three failure-injection arms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T15:40:15Z)
• Self-Improving AI Coding Agents Through Accumulated Behavioral Rules: A Closed-Loop Framework [0.3867363075280543]
  We present a closed-loop framework in which every accepted review comment is codified as a persistent behavioral rule.<n>The framework combines an accumulating rule set in a version-controlled instruction file, a self-review checklist, and automated validation.<n>We show that our framework achieves persistent cross-session learning without weight updates, operates on productions rather than synthetic benchmarks, and addresses an experiential dimension (behavioral consistency over time) that existing benchmarks do not measure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T21:13:46Z)
• ClawArena-Team: Benchmarking Subagent Orchestration and Dynamic Workflows in Language-Model Agents [61.184954205350984]
  ClawArena-Team is a benchmark of 41 multi-turn, multimodal, multi-agent scenarios spanning 258 evaluation rounds and 72 staged updates.<n>All scoring is execution-based with no LLM judge: an overall score -- the Subagent-Management Score (SMS) -- multiplies task correctness by a least-privilege and modality-routing factor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T06:06:08Z)
• CLQT: A Closed-Loop, Cost-Aware, Strategy-Consistent Benchmark for Diagnostic Evaluation of LLM Portfolio-Management Agents [0.9924185669370708]
  We introduce CLQT, which reframes closed-loop trading evaluation as diagnosis rather than ranking.<n> CLQT is a fully closed-loop, cost-aware, strategy-consistent, temporally-gated environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T04:26:30Z)
• Pramana: A Protocol-Layer Treatment of Claim Verification in Autonomous Agent Networks [0.0]
  Production verification today splits into two halves: Probabilistic verdict patterns (self-consistency voting, reviewer LLM ensembles) produce judgments, not artifacts.<n>Pramana defines the missing wire format. Every consequential agent output is wrapped in a typed ClaimAttestation with one of four variants.<n>Pramana exhaustively verified under TLC across three symmetry-reduced models: 38,563 distinct reachable states, zero invariant violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T17:00:33Z)
• Same Signal, Different Semantics: A Cross-Framework Behavioral Analysis of Software Engineering Agents [28.650582699234402]
  Behavioral studies of software engineering agents extract operational rules about which trajectory shapes correlate with higher resolution rates.<n>Each rule is typically derived from a single framework, and whether it transfers, in sign as well as magnitude, to structurally different agent designs has not been directly tested.<n>We separate framework effects from LLM effects by holding each layer fixed in turn, then measure one behavior-outcome effect per configuration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T12:49:18Z)
• Logic-Regularized Verifier Elicits Reasoning from LLMs [63.65875399266337]
  We propose LOVER, an unsupervised verifier regularized by logical rules.<n>Lover treats theverifier as a binary latent variable, utilizinginternal activations and enforcing three logical constraints.<n>Lover significantly outperforms unsupervised baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T09:03:49Z)
• Maestro: Joint Graph & Config Optimization for Reliable AI Agents [53.71882250666667]
  Maestro is a holistic-agnostic framework for LLM agents that jointly searches over graphs and configurations to maximize agent quality.<n>On the IFBench and HotpotQA benchmarks, Maestro consistently surpasses leading prompts--MIPROv2, GEPA, and GEPA+--by an average of 12%--4.9%, and 4.86%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T20:00:37Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers [121.53749383203792]
  We present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of large language models (LLMs)-generated responses. We construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity are struggling to identify false claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T14:41:57Z)

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.