LLM-powered Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) have emerged as an effective approach towards collaborative intelligence, and have attracted wide research interests. Among them, ``self-evolving'' MAS, treated as a more flexible and powerful technical route, can construct task-adaptive workflows or communication topologies, instead of relying on a predefined static structue template. Current self-evolving MAS mainly focus on Spatial Evolving or Temporal Evolving paradigm, which only considers the single dimension of evolution and does not fully incentivize LLMs' collaborative capability. In this work, we start from a novel Spatio-Temporal perspective by proposing ST-EVO, which supports dialogue-wise communication scheduling with a compact yet powerful flow-matching based Scheduler. To make precise Spatio-Temporal scheduling, ST-EVO can also perceive the uncertainty of MAS, and possesses self-feedback ability to learn from accumulated experience. Extensive experiments on nine benchmarks demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of ST-EVO, achieving about 5%--25% accuracy improvement.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Existing multi-agent systems. Our proposed ST-EVO pioneers the exploration of Spatio-Temporal Evolving multi-agent systems.
Figure 2: The overview of ST-EVO . The framework follows a macro-to-micro logic: Construct & Schedule outlines the core macro-workflow where the Scheduler iteratively refines the communication topology Gi . Supporting this, Materials details the foundational components used to instantiate agents, while the Spatio-Temporal Multi-Agent System illustrates the step-wise topology evolution via graph flow matching. Finally, Optimize formulates the trajectory-retrieval regularized loss and the stability reward that align the Scheduler’s preferences.
PE
VE
System State Description
Low ( ↓ )
Low ( ↓ )
High Confidence (Deterministic)
High ( ↑ )
High ( ↑ )
Conflicting Uncertainty (Branching)
High ( ↑ )
Low ( ↓ )
Uniform Ignorance (Cluelessness)
Low ( ↓ )
High ( ↑ )
Overconfident Anomaly (Rare state)
Table 1: Taxonomy of System States based on Predictive Entropy (PE) and VarEntropy (VE).
Method
MMLU
GSM8K
MultiArith
SVAMP
AQuA
HumanEval
DS-1000
HotpotQA
DDXPlus
Avg.
Vanilla
80.47
87.15
93.40
87.25
69.27
73.28
38.40
82.35
56.40
74.22
Single-Agent Systems
CoT
81.85 ↑1.38
87.35 ↑0.20
93.60 ↑0.20
87.90 ↑0.65
72.40 ↑3.13
74.05 ↑0.77
42.35 ↑3.95
81.04 ↓1.31
64.22 ↑7.82
76.08
SC
82.95 ↑2.48
87.66 ↑0.51
94.40 ↑1.00
87.40 ↑0.15
71.85 ↑2.58
75.82 ↑2.54
37.66 ↓0.74
82.24 ↓0.11
66.43 ↑10.03
76.27
Multi-Agent Systems
Chain
82.40 ↑1.93
87.23 ↑0.08
92.88 ↓0.52
87.16 ↓0.09
69.85 ↑0.58
73.40 ↑0.12
38.25 ↓0.15
80.77 ↓1.58
65.28 ↑8.88
75.25
Table 2: Accuracy (%) comparison with four types baselines, including Single-Agent Systems, Multi-Agent Systems, Spatial Evolving Multi-Agent Systems, and Temporal Evolving Multi-Agent Systems. All baselines and ST-EVO are driven by gpt-oss-120b (Vanilla). Red : the best, Blue : the runner-up.
Figure 3: Visualization of performance metrics and token consumption of different MAS across MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, SVAMP. The diameters of the circles represent the scales of token consumption.
Figure 4: We utilize the accuracy (%) and eRsta∈[0,1] to visualize the stability of ST-EVO . Higher values indicate better stabilities.
Figure 5: We compare the accuracy (%) of multiple multi-agent systems before and after prompt attacks on all benchmarks, and report the average results.
Variant
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K
ST-EVO
89.9
94.4
94.7
97.6
w/o Scheduling
84.7
89.6
88.6
92.5
w/o Lreg
84.9
88.2
90.3
93.7
w/o Node Encoder
82.0
84.8
87.5
94.8
Table 3: Ablation studies tested on MMLU, HumanEval, SVAMP, and GSM8K benchmarks.
Appendix figures & tables40 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Entropy Estimator
Avg. Acc.
PE Corr.
Extra Calls
Logprob-based
94.15
1.00
0
Sample-based ( K=5 )
92.95
0.85
5×
Sample-based ( K=3 )
92.23
–
3×
Confidence probe
92.40
0.78
0
w/o PE/VE
91.80
–
0
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of entropy estimators. Average accuracy is computed over MMLU, HumanEval, SVAMP, and GSM8K. PE Corr. is the Pearson correlation with logprob-based PE, and extra calls are measured per agent and iteration.
Category
Dataset
Answer Type
Metric
#Test
License
General reasoning
MMLU
Multi-choice
Acc.
153
MIT License
HotpotQA
Span
F1
7,405
CC BY-SA 4.0
Math reasoning
GSM8K
Number
Acc.
1,319
MIT License
MultiArith
Number
Acc.
600
Unspecified
SVAMP
Number
Acc.
1,000
MIT License
AQuA
Multi-choice
Acc.
254
Apache-2.0
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset descriptions and statistics.
Method
SWE-Bench
Terminal-Bench
MLE-Bench
WebArena
Vanilla (single)
37.4
32.6
9.2
15.7
Chain (4 agents)
39.1
34.8
10.6
17.9
Complete Graph
40.8
36.3
12.1
20.3
G-Designer
44.2
39.7
15.8
24.6
SafeSieve
45.6
40.9
16.4
25.8
STEER
46.3
41.5
17.2
26.7
Appendix
Table 6: Results (%) on four challenging agentic benchmarks. All methods use gpt-oss-120b and the same communication-based multi-agent protocol.
Backbone
Architecture
Vanilla
Best Baseline
ST-EVO
Gain
gpt-oss-120b
120B Dense
74.22
83.91
88.42
+4.51
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
122B MoE (10B active)
71.99
81.75
86.48
+4.73
Qwen3.6-27B
27B Dense
70.05
79.88
84.83
+4.95
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
35B MoE (3B active)
64.16
75.18
81.14
+5.96
Qwen3-30B-A3B
30B MoE (3B active)
62.71
73.74
79.59
+5.85
Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B
30B MoE (3B active)
61.67
72.50
78.29
+5.79
Appendix
Table 7: Average accuracy (%) across the nine benchmarks with different backbone models. Gain is measured against the strongest baseline for each backbone.
#Agents
5
10
20
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
82.7
83.3
83.6
Time (min)
14.2
31.4
59.7
#Tokens
431,064
1,317,148
4,245,925
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
83.6
84.2
84.8
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of accuracy, time, and token consumption across different agent configurations. We use the MMLU benchmark and gpt-oss-120b as the base LLM.
#Iterations
3
6
12
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
82.7
83.1
83.3
Time (min)
14.2
27.4
52.5
#Tokens
431,064
816,266
1,425,295
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
83.6
84.0
84.2
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of accuracy, time, and token consumption across different dialogue iterations. We use the MMLU benchmark and gpt-oss-120b as the base LLM.
Variant
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K
Avg.
ST-EVO
89.9
94.4
94.7
97.6
94.15
w/ LLM Scheduler
86.8
91.2
91.5
94.9
91.10
w/o Scheduling
84.7
89.6
88.6
92.5
88.85
w/ Random Scheduler
83.8
88.7
87.9
91.6
88.00
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation study on different scheduling strategies. We report the accuracy (%) on MMLU, HumanEval, SVAMP, and GSM8K, as well as the average performance.
Variant
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K
Avg.
ST-EVO
89.9
94.4
94.7
97.6
94.15
w/ Diffusion Scheduler
87.6
92.0
92.4
95.5
91.88
w/ VAE Scheduler
87.1
91.6
91.8
95.0
91.38
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation study on different generative mechanisms for topology scheduling. We report the accuracy (%) on MMLU, HumanEval, SVAMP, and GSM8K, as well as the average performance.
Variant
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K
Avg.
ST-EVO (full)
89.90
94.40
94.70
97.60
94.15
w/o Entropy Reward
87.23
91.76
92.41
95.82
91.81
w/o Retrieval
84.86
88.24
90.31
93.72
89.28
w/o Both
83.17
86.43
87.94
91.76
87.33
Appendix
Table 12: Combined ablation of the entropy-based stability reward and retrieve-augment module. All values are accuracy (%).
α
β
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K / Avg.
0.3
0.7
88.17
92.68
93.14
96.33 / 92.58
0.5
0.5
89.85
94.36
94.72
97.60 / 94.13
0.7
0.3
89.06
93.51
93.85
96.92 / 93.34
1.0
0.0
87.43
91.74
91.96
95.48 / 91.65
0.0
1.0
86.72
91.15
91.37
94.93 / 91.04
Appendix
Table 13: Sensitivity to the stability-reward weights α and β . Results are accuracy (%).
Capacity L
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K
Avg.
0
84.86
88.24
90.31
93.72
89.28
25
87.74
91.93
92.76
95.81
92.06
50
88.93
93.47
93.85
96.74
93.25
100
89.90
94.40
94.70
97.60
94.15
200
89.82
94.31
94.63
97.54
94.08
500
89.79
94.28
94.58
97.51
94.04
Appendix
Table 14: Sensitivity to trajectory-cache capacity. Results are accuracy (%).
P
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K
Avg.
Time (ms)
10
86.53
90.74
91.18
94.46
90.73
12
25
88.19
92.83
93.41
96.23
92.67
24
50
89.24
93.79
94.05
96.98
93.52
38
100
89.85
94.36
94.72
97.60
94.13
65
200
89.91
94.38
94.74
97.62
94.16
125
500
89.94
94.42
94.79
97.65
94.20
305
Appendix
Table 15: Accuracy–latency trade-off for the number of Flow-Matching integration steps P .
Method
Jaccard
Std.
Oscillation Rate
Random Scheduler
0.31
0.22
78.4%
G-Designer (fixed)
1.00
0.00
0.0%
ST-EVO w/o smoothing
0.72
0.15
22.3%
ST-EVO w/ smoothing
0.81
0.09
12.8%
Appendix
Table 16: Similarity and oscillation of communication topologies between adjacent dialogue iterations.
Variant
MMLU
HumanEval
SVAMP
GSM8K
Jaccard
w/o smoothing
89.85
94.36
94.72
97.60
0.72
λ=0.01
89.78
94.29
94.64
97.53
0.78
λ=0.05
89.71
94.18
94.51
97.42
0.81
λ=0.10
89.32
93.81
94.03
97.06
0.88
λ=0.50
87.46
91.53
92.18
95.27
0.95
Appendix
Table 17: Effect of topology-smoothing strength on accuracy (%) and adjacent-topology similarity.
Transfer Setting
Target Domain
Original on Target
Transfer Acc.
Drop
GSM8K → SVAMP
Math → Math
94.72
93.85
0.87
HumanEval → DS-1000
Code → Code
58.65
57.42
1.23
GSM8K → HumanEval
Math → Code
94.36
88.54
5.82
HumanEval → GSM8K
Code → Math
97.60
90.71
6.89
Appendix
Table 18: Generalization study via cross-dataset transfer. A→B denotes that the scheduler is few-shot trained on dataset A and directly evaluated on dataset B . “Original on Target” denotes the performance of ST-EVO trained directly on the target dataset, while “Transfer Acc.” denotes the performance under the transfer setting.
Transfer Setting
Domain
Target-Trained
Zero-Shot
Drop
GSM8K → SVAMP
Math → Math
94.72
91.38
3.34
GSM8K → MultiArith
Math → Math
99.05
96.73
2.32
HumanEval → DS-1000
Code → Code
58.65
53.07
5.58
GSM8K → HumanEval
Math → Code
94.36
81.92
12.44
HumanEval → GSM8K
Code → Math
97.60
84.17
13.43
GSM8K → MMLU
Math → General
89.85
80.26
9.59
Appendix
Table 19: Zero-shot cross-task transfer. Target-Trained denotes a scheduler trained on the target dataset; Zero-Shot directly transfers the source scheduler without target-task queries. All values are accuracy (%).
Hyperparameter
Value
Backbone LLM
gpt-oss-120b
Prompt template
Same as ST-EVO
Decoding temperature
0.1
Optimization target
Graph edges and prompts
Graph optimizer
REINFORCE
Initial edge probability
0.10
Appendix
Table 20: Key hyperparameter settings of GPTSwarm.
Hyperparameter
Value
Backbone LLM
gpt-oss-120b
Prompt template
Same as ST-EVO
Decoding temperature
0.1
Communication rounds
3
Node encoder
all-MiniLM-L6-v2
Node embedding dimension
384
Appendix
Table 21: Key hyperparameter settings of G-Designer.
Hyperparameter
Value
Backbone LLM
gpt-oss-120b
Prompt template
Same as ST-EVO
Decoding temperature
0.1
Search algorithm
Monte Carlo Tree Search
Workflow representation
Code-represented workflow
Optimized components
Workflow edges and node prompts
Appendix
Table 22: Key hyperparameter settings of AFlow.
Hyperparameter
Value
Backbone LLM
gpt-oss-120b
Prompt template
Same as ST-EVO
Decoding temperature
0.1
Routing granularity
Reasoning step
Draft model
gpt-oss-120b
Verifier model
gpt-oss-120b
Appendix
Table 23: Key hyperparameter settings of SpecReason.
Hyperparameter
Value
Backbone LLM
gpt-oss-120b
Prompt template
Same as ST-EVO
Decoding temperature
0.1
Routing granularity
Reasoning step
Routing signal
Logit-based confidence
Confidence estimator
Maximum logit confidence
Appendix
Table 24: Key hyperparameter settings of STEER.
Hyperparameter
Value
Backbone LLM
gpt-oss-120b
Prompt template
Same as ST-EVO
Decoding temperature
0.1
Initial topology
Fully connected graph
Pruning granularity
Communication edge
Initial edge scoring
Semantic compatibility
Appendix
Table 25: Key hyperparameter settings of SafeSieve.
Hyperparameter
Value
Backbone LLM
gpt-oss-120b
Prompt template
Same as ST-EVO
Decoding temperature
0.1
Topology generation paradigm
Autoregressive graph generation
Graph initialization
Empty graph
Node generation strategy
Role selection from agent pool
Appendix
Table 26: Key hyperparameter settings of ARG-Designer.
Figure 6: Case study on GSM8K.
Figure 7: Case study on MultiArith.
Figure 8: Case study on HumanEval.
Figure 9: Case study on DS-1000.
Figure 10: Case study on MMLU.
Method
Attack Ratio
MMLU
SVAMP
HumanEval
Avg.
Random Graph
Clean (0/5)
83.20
87.10
84.14
84.81
Attack (1/5)
76.48 ( ↓ 6.72)
79.72 ( ↓ 7.38)
77.73 ( ↓ 6.41)
77.98 ( ↓ 6.83)
Attack (2/5)
72.36 ( ↓ 10.84)
75.64 ( ↓ 11.46)
73.97 ( ↓ 10.17)
73.99 ( ↓ 10.82)
Attack (3/5)
67.83 ( ↓ 15.37)
70.82 ( ↓ 16.28)
68.52 ( ↓ 15.62)
69.06 ( ↓ 15.75)
SafeSieve
Clean (0/5)
84.65
90.10
90.15
88.30
Attack (1/5)
80.93 ( ↓ 3.72)
85.15 ( ↓ 4.95)
84.31 ( ↓ 5.84)
83.46 ( ↓ 4.84)
Appendix
Table 27: Robustness analyses under different fractions of compromised agents. We consistently use five agents for all multi-agent systems. We report the accuracy (%) on MMLU, SVAMP, and HumanEval, as well as the average performance. Attack (k/5) denotes that k out of five agents are injected with an adversarial system prompt. The values in parentheses indicate the absolute performance drop compared with the corresponding clean setting.
Method
Metric
5 Agents
10 Agents
20 Agents
40 Agents
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
82.7
83.3
83.6
83.8
Time (minutes)
14.2
31.4
59.7
118.5
#Tokens
431,064
1,317,148
4,245,925
13,184,762
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
83.6
84.2
84.8
85.1
Time (minutes)
67.8
201.8
422.5
825.0
#Tokens
1,672,201
5,103,328
14,054,825
39,487,316
Appendix
Table 28: Scalability comparison on MMLU under different numbers of agents.
Method
Metric
5 Agents
10 Agents
20 Agents
40 Agents
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
83.6
84.1
84.6
84.9
Time (minutes)
3.8
7.5
15.2
31.4
#Tokens
158,426
316,917
641,382
1,296,745
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
86.5
87.1
87.8
88.2
Time (minutes)
8.9
17.6
35.9
73.8
#Tokens
189,742
381,653
776,438
1,592,817
Appendix
Table 29: Scalability comparison on HumanEval under different numbers of agents.
Method
Metric
5 Agents
10 Agents
20 Agents
40 Agents
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
86.6
87.1
87.5
87.8
Time (minutes)
10.6
21.4
43.8
89.7
#Tokens
648,372
1,294,816
2,631,457
5,382,904
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
86.7
87.3
87.8
88.1
Time (minutes)
25.8
52.6
108.4
223.7
#Tokens
1,006,481
2,018,736
4,126,592
8,482,317
Appendix
Table 30: Scalability comparison on SVAMP under different numbers of agents.
Method
Metric
3 Iterations
6 Iterations
12 Iterations
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
82.7
83.1
83.3
Time (minutes)
14.2
27.4
52.5
#Tokens
431,064
816,266
1,425,295
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
83.6
84.0
84.2
Time (minutes)
67.8
112.5
199.4
#Tokens
1,672,201
3,025,162
5,925,102
Appendix
Table 31: Scalability comparison on MMLU under different numbers of iterations.
Method
Metric
3 Iterations
6 Iterations
12 Iterations
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
84.1
84.5
84.8
Time (minutes)
5.6
10.8
20.9
#Tokens
246,382
467,915
834,276
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
87.1
87.5
87.8
Time (minutes)
18.4
32.7
60.8
#Tokens
381,624
704,892
1,326,517
Appendix
Table 32: Scalability comparison on HumanEval under different numbers of iterations.
Method
Metric
3 Iterations
6 Iterations
12 Iterations
Random Graph
Accuracy (%)
86.6
87.0
87.2
Time (minutes)
10.6
20.5
39.2
#Tokens
648,372
1,227,762
2,143,815
GPTSwarm
Accuracy (%)
86.7
87.1
87.3
Time (minutes)
25.8
42.8
75.9
#Tokens
1,006,481
1,820,815
3,566,259
Appendix
Table 33: Scalability comparison on SVAMP under different numbers of iterations.
Methods
MMLU
GSM8K
MultiArith
SVAMP
AQuA
HumanEval
DS-1000
HotpotQA
DDXPlus
Avg.
LLM-Debate
83.28
89.95
95.45
88.30
73.52
85.24
49.26
84.55
71.33
80.10
G-Designer
84.63
93.35
97.60
89.52
76.30
89.40
54.82
87.66
76.42
83.30
ST-EVO (10 Queries)
85.35
93.85
97.45
89.85
77.60
89.70
55.05
88.10
76.95
83.77
ST-EVO (20 Queries)
87.10
95.20
98.20
91.35
81.10
91.55
56.35
89.75
79.15
85.53
ST-EVO (40 Queries)
89.85
96.85
99.05
93.70
84.90
93.30
57.65
91.55
81.40
87.58
ST-EVO (60 Queries)
90.10
97.60
99.12
94.72
86.10
94.10
58.30
92.20
82.25
88.28
Appendix
Table 34: Performance comparison under different numbers of training queries.
Component
Time (ms)
Percentage
LLM inference (4 agents)
8,500
93.9%
Entropy computation
45
0.5%
Flow-Matching scheduling
65
0.7%
Cache retrieval
12
0.1%
Topology parsing and routing
8
0.1%
Inter-agent message passing
420
4.6%
Appendix
Table 35: Inference-latency breakdown per dialogue iteration with four agents.
Metric
Value
Scheduler parameters
2.8M
Training hardware
1 × NVIDIA 3090 (24 GB)
Training GPU memory
4.2 GB
Training time (40 queries)
∼ 35 min
Training time (80 queries)
∼ 68 min
LLM calls for training (80 queries)
∼ 2,400
Appendix
Table 36: Training and inference cost of the ST-EVO scheduler. Scheduling latency is measured with P=100 integration steps.
Method
Training Time
GPU Memory
Parameters
G-Designer
∼ 45 min
3.8 GB
2.1M
ARG-Designer
∼ 55 min
4.5 GB
3.2M
SafeSieve
∼ 50 min
3.5 GB
1.8M
ST-EVO
∼ 68 min
4.2 GB
2.8M
Appendix
Table 37: Scheduler training-cost comparison under an 80-query budget.
MMLU
GSM8K
MultiArith
SVAMP
AQuA
ST-EVO
89.82 ± 0.18
97.55 ± 0.21
99.01 ± 0.12
94.68 ± 0.24
86.48 ± 0.36
HumanEval
DS-1000
HotpotQA
DDXPlus
ST-EVO
94.29 ± 0.31
58.72 ± 0.42
92.49 ± 0.27
82.43 ± 0.39
Appendix
Table 38: Mean and standard deviation of ST-EVO across three independent runs.
Multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a promising paradigm for solving complex tasks. Recent work has explored self-evolving MAS that automatically optimize agent capabilities or communication topologies. However, existing methods either learn a topology that remains fixed at inference time or adapt only the topology or capability during inference. We empirically and theoretically show that effective test-time evolution requires jointly adapting both axes, but on different time scales: capabilities should update rapidly to handle emerging subtasks, while the topology should evolve more slowly to preserve coordination stability. We then introduce TacoMAS, a test-time co-evolution framework for dynamic MAS. TacoMAS formulates MAS inference as a task of online graph adaptation, where nodes represent agents with role-specific capabilities and edges define their communication topology. During inference, a fast capability loop updates agent expertise using trajectory-level feedback, while a slow meta-LLM-driven topology loop performs agents' birth-death operations on MAS, including edge edit, agent addition, and agent removal. We further show that this fast-slow design drives MAS evolution toward a task-conditioned stable equilibrium. Experiments on four benchmarks demonstrate that TacoMAS outperforms nearly 20 multi-agent baselines, achieving an average improvement of 13.3% over the strongest baseline. The codes are released at https://github.com/chenxu2-gif/TacoMAS-MultiAgent.
Chen Xu, Yicheng Hu, Ruizi Wang +4
1Carnegie Mellon University · University of Science and Technology of China · 3National University of Singapore +1
Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems have shown strong potential on complex tasks through agent specialization, tool use, and collaborative reasoning. However, most automated multi-agent system design methods still follow a one-shot paradigm: a workflow is optimized or selected before execution and then reused unchanged throughout the task. This static coordination strategy is ill-suited for long-horizon tasks whose subgoals, intermediate evidence, and information needs evolve over multiple execution stages. We propose EvoMAS, a framework for execution-time multi-agent workflow construction. EvoMAS formulates workflow construction as a meta-level sequential decision problem along a single task trajectory. At each stage, it constructs an explicit task state through a Planner-Evaluator-Updater pipeline and uses a learned Workflow Adapter to instantiate a stage-specific layered workflow from a fixed pool of candidate agents. The adapter is trained with policy gradients using sparse, verifiable terminal task success as the main supervision signal, while evaluator-based process reward is analyzed separately under very-hard sparse-reward settings. Experiments on GAIA, HLE, and DeepResearcher show that EvoMAS outperforms single-agent baselines and recent automated multi-agent workflow design methods. Our analyses further show that explicit task-state construction and learned workflow adaptation provide complementary benefits. Additional results indicate that process reward is most useful when terminal success is extremely sparse, and qualitative case studies illustrate that EvoMAS adapts agent coordination as the task state evolves.
Chengdong Xu, Kaiqiang Ke, Ziheng Liu +4
Sun Yat-Sen University · ShanghaiTech University · Zhejiang University +1
LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as an effective paradigm for complex and long-horizon tasks. However, in real-world tasks, MAS often exhibit various failures during execution and such failures are difficult to eliminate during design. This motivates experience-driven MAS evolution, where a system improves based on its own execution experience. Yet such evolution is challenging because MAS experience is prolonged and intricate, interleaving multiple agents' execution chains and communication messages, which makes it difficult to identify what should be improved. To address this challenge, we propose Meta-Team, an experience-driven MAS evolution framework based on collaborative self-evolution. Meta-Team preserves the execution context of each agent and coordinates post-task communication, enabling agents to exchange distributed evidence for evolution. Building on this design, Meta-Team conducts multi-scale self-evolution, transforming execution experience into reusable improvements to agent behaviors, inter-agent coordination, and team-level organization. Across six long-horizon agent benchmarks, Meta-Team consistently outperforms single-agent systems, hand-crafted MAS, and prior MAS evolution methods; further analyses demonstrate that Meta-Team enables more reliable and scalable MAS self-evolution.
Zhezheng Hao, Tianfu Wang, Huanshuo Dong +7
Zhejiang University · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Tencent