Reducing Cognitive Overhead in Tool Use via Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Agentic Reinforcement Learning (ARL) trains large language models to interleave reasoning with external tool execution to solve complex tasks. Most existing ARL methods train a single set of parameters to support both reasoning and tool-use behaviors, implicitly assuming that joint training leads to improved overall agent performance. Despite its widespread adoption, this assumption has rarely been examined empirically. In this paper, we systematically examine this assumption by introducing Capability Effect Attribution (CEA), which provides quantitative evidence of interference between reasoning and tool-use behaviors. Through an in-depth analysis, we show that these two capabilities often induce misaligned gradient directions, leading to training interference that undermines the effectiveness of joint optimization and challenges the prevailing ARL paradigm. To address this issue, we propose Disentangled Action--Reasoning Tuning (DART), a simple and efficient framework that explicitly decouples parameter updates for reasoning and tool use via separate low-rank adaptation modules. With this simple change alone, DART outperforms all joint-optimization baselines and approaches the 2-Agent upper bound across thirteen benchmarks on retrieval-augmented QA and NL2SQL, further supporting our finding of capability interference under shared optimization.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have become a promising paradigm for complex information-seeking and reasoning tasks by enabling collaborative problem solving among specialized agents. However, existing MAS frameworks tightly couple task reasoning with coordination operations, including task selection, role assignment, message routing, and context management. As interactions grow, using powerful LLMs for these bounded control decisions introduces substantial token overhead and latency, limiting the scalability of agentic Web services. In this paper, we investigate whether coordination can be decoupled from expensive reasoning without compromising collaborative performance. We propose S1-MAS, a token-efficient multi-agent framework based on System One-guided computational division of labor. S1-MAS assigns bounded coordination decisions to lightweight System One models while reserving open-ended reasoning for capable LLM workers. Specifically, a lightweight controller selects inspection conditions, chooses subsequent tasks, and determines termination, while a compact reader retrieves condition-relevant evidence from authorized sources to support these decisions. Through a decision-evidence loop, selected tasks dynamically determine worker roles and source access, enabling adaptive collaboration without task-specific training. Extensive experiments on seven diverse benchmarks demonstrate that S1-MAS achieves superior accuracy while substantially reducing the inference cost. Across individual comparisons with AgentVerse, DyLAN, and SelfOrg on seven benchmarks, S1-MAS reduces GPT-4o token consumption by 44.9%-97.2% and measured end-to-end latency by 37.8%-93.0%. These results highlight its potential for scalable and cost-effective agentic Web applications.

Chain-of-thought prompting has popularized step-by-step reasoning in large language models, yet model performance still degrades as problem complexity and context length grow. By decomposing difficult tasks with long contexts into shorter, manageable ones, recent multi-agent paradigms offer a promising near-term solution to this problem. However, the fundamental capacities of such systems are poorly understood. In this work, we propose a theoretical framework to analyze the expressivity of multi-agent systems. We apply our framework to three algorithmic families: state tracking, recall, and $k$-hop reasoning. We derive bounds on (i) the number of agents required to solve the task exactly, (ii) the quantity and structure of inter-agent communication, and (iii) the achievable speedups as problem size and context scale. Our results identify regimes where communication is provably beneficial, delineate tradeoffs between agent count and bandwidth, and expose intrinsic limitations when either resource is constrained. We complement our theoretical analysis with a set of experiments on pretrained LLMs using controlled synthetic benchmarks. Empirical outcomes confirm the tradeoffs between key quantities predicted by our theory. Collectively, our analysis offers principled guidance for designing scalable multi-agent reasoning systems.