Silo-Bench: A Scalable Environment for Evaluating Distributed Coordination in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Organizations: Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Meituan LongCat Interaction Team · ETH Zürich, Switzerland · Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems to overcome context limitations by distributing information across agents. Yet whether agents can reliably compute with distributed information, rather than merely exchange it, remains an open question. We introduce SILO-BENCH, a role-agnostic benchmark of 30 algorithmic tasks across three communication complexity levels, evaluating 54 configurations over 1,620 experiments. Our experiments expose a fundamental Communication-Reasoning Gap: agents spontaneously form task-appropriate coordination topologies and exchange information actively, yet systematically fail to synthesize distributed state into correct answers. The failure is localized to the reasoning-integration stage where agents often acquire sufficient information but cannot integrate it. This coordination overhead compounds with scale, eventually eliminating parallelization gains entirely. These findings demonstrate that naively scaling agent count cannot circumvent context limitations, and SILO-BENCH provides a foundation for tracking progress toward genuinely collaborative multi-agent systems. The code is available at https://github.com/jwyjohn/acl26-silo-bench .
Figures & tables
| Dimension | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-OSS-120B | Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SR | PCS | Token | Den. | SR | PCS | Token | Den. | SR | PCS | Token | Den. | |
| By Communication Protocol | ||||||||||||
| BP | 40.4 | 50.7 | 297.3 | 0.93 | 14.4 | 33.1 | 148.7 | 0.78 | 4.5 | 12.2 | 846.9 | 0.13 |
| P2P | 38.9 | 50.4 | 363.1 | 1.52 | 20.3 | 42.6 | 579.8 | 2.25 | 10.5 | 26.5 | 909.8 | 0.62 |
| SFS | 31.5 | 41.0 | 308.5 | 1.13 | 16.0 | 34.7 | 212.8 | 0.74 | 9.5 | 18.7 | 864.4 | 0.21 |
| By Difficulty Level | ||||||||||||
| Level I (Aggregation) | Level II (Mesh) | Level III (Global Shuffle) | ||||||||
| Scale | SR( =1) | SR( = ) | RCC | SR( =1) | SR( = ) | RCC | SR( =1) | SR( = ) | RCC | |
| k = 2 | 96.7 | 82.0 | 15.2% | 90.0 | 62.0 | 31.1% | 80.0 | 41.0 | 48.8% | |
| k = 5 | 93.3 | 65.0 | 30.3% | 70.0 | 47.0 | 32.9% | 73.3 | 22.0 | 70.0% | |
| k = 10 | 76.7 | 51.3 | 33.1% | 73.3 | 22.0 | 70.0% | 60.0 | 9.0 | 85.0% | |
| k = 20 | 63.3 | 48.0 | 24.2% | 36.7 | 14.0 | 61.8% | 43.3 | 7.0 | 83.8% | |
| k = 50 | 33.3 | 18.0 | 45.9% | 30.0 | 6.0 | 80.0% | 26.7 | 0.0 | 100% | |
| Level | N=2 | N=5 | N=10 | N=20 | N=50 | N=100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 85.0 | 72.0 | 68.7 | 65.7 | 38.1 | 40.6 |
| II | 61.7 | 55.3 | 28.3 | 29.5 | 17.4 | 14.3 |
| III | 36.2 | 17.2 | 10.0 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Avg | 61.2 | 48.5 | 39.9 | 33.6 | 19.0 | 18.1 |
| Failure Mode | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Success | 153 | 50.8% |
| Premature Submission | 112 | 37.2% |
| Consensus Failure | 90 | 29.9% |
| Computation Error | 86 | 28.6% |
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Protocol | Description | Available Actions |
|---|---|---|
| P2P | Directed messaging via agent-addressed mailboxes | send_message , receive_messages , wait , submit_result |
| BP | Broadcast messaging to all agents simultaneously | broadcast_message , receive_messages , list_agents , wait , submit_result |
| SFS | Coordination through shared key-value storage | list_files , read_file , write_file , delete_file , wait , submit_result |
| Component | Min | Mean | Max | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base Prompt ( ) | 612 | 748.8 | 989 | 87.3 |
| Data Shard ( ) | 45 | 312.4 | 1,856 | 298.6 |
| Model | Min | Mean | Max | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V3.1 | 124 | 8,498.7 | 98,432 | 12,847 |
| GPT-OSS-120B | 89 | 2,049.3 | 45,218 | 5,632 |
| Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B | 156 | 2,299.3 | 52,847 | 6,891 |
| Model | Mean Util. | 95th Pctl. | Max Util. |
|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V3.1 | 7.5% | 28.4% | 76.9% |
| GPT-OSS-120B | 2.4% | 8.2% | 35.3% |
| Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B | 2.6% | 9.1% | 41.3% |
| ID | Task Name | Reference | Distributed Adaptation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level I: Aggregation (Optimal: Star/Tree Topology, messages) | |||
| I-01 | Global Maximum | LC-414 | Array partitioned; local max global aggregation |
| I-02 | Word Frequency | LC-2085 | Word lists distributed; count target word globally |
| I-03 | Distributed Vote | LC-169 | Vote records partitioned; aggregate to find majority |
| I-04 | Any Match | LC-28 | String collection split; detect pattern in any shard |
| I-05 | Range Count | LC-327 | Count elements in range across shards |
| Task | BP | P2P | SFS | Avg |
| Level I: Aggregation | ||||
| I-01 Global Max | 100 | 100 | 80 | 93.3 |
| I-02 Word Frequency | 100 | 52 | 70 | 73.9 |
| I-03 Distributed Vote | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100.0 |
| I-04 Any Match | 100 | 100 | 99 | 99.6 |
| I-05 Range Count | 83 | 67 | 63 | 71.0 |
| Model | Protocol | L-I | L-II | L-III |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V3.1 | BP | 69.7 | 34.5 | 14.7 |
| P2P | 62.9 | 39.9 | 11.5 | |
| SFS | 53.5 | 30.6 | 9.0 | |
| GPT-OSS-120B | BP | 19.6 | 13.9 | 9.7 |
| P2P | 34.9 | 18.5 | 7.5 | |
| SFS | 27.7 | 11.0 | 9.1 |
| Model | N=2 | N=5 | N=10 | N=20 | N=50 | N=100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V3.1 | 61.2 | 48.5 | 39.9 | 33.6 | 19.0 | 18.1 |
| GPT-OSS-120B | 34.4 | 28.0 | 14.0 | 13.2 | 5.2 | 6.4 |
| Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B | 17.2 | 9.1 | 8.6 | 7.4 | 5.1 | 1.3 |
| Model | Protocol | L-I | L-II | L-III |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V3.1 | BP | 0.56 | 0.82 | 1.46 |
| P2P | 0.76 | 1.06 | 2.83 | |
| SFS | 0.82 | 1.08 | 1.51 | |
| GPT-OSS-120B | BP | 0.54 | 0.84 | 0.94 |
| P2P | 1.86 | 2.15 | 2.73 | |
| SFS | 0.73 | 0.54 | 0.95 |
| Case | Failure Mode | Description | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Consensus Failure | In task I-05, agents communicated extensively but failed to converge, submitting three distinct answers: {1176, 1182, 1167}. | 97 of 100 agents submitted 1182; Agent-3 submitted 1176; Agent-55 submitted 1167. |
| 2 | Computation Error | Agent-10 in task I-05 received complete data from all peers but computed an incorrect range count. | Submitted 619 instead of correct answer 620. Arithmetic error during final aggregation. |
| 3 | Consensus Failure | In task I-05 (different instance), 50 agents split between two answers despite communication. | 49 agents submitted 619; Agent-27 submitted 631. |
| 4 | Premature Submission | Agent-77 in task I-06 submitted before collecting sufficient data. | Submitted after receiving data from only 28 of 100 agents. Answer: 208; Expected: 114. |
| 5 | Consensus Failure | 100 agents in task I-06 produced 12 distinct answers for XOR checksum task. | Answers ranged from 42 to 238. Majority (86 agents) converged on 146. |
| Premature | Consensus | Compute | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premature | 112 | 67 | 45 |
| Consensus | – | 90 | 52 |
| Compute | – | – | 86 |
| Metric | Success | Failed |
|---|---|---|
| Verification Rate | 98.7% | 95.9% |
| Strategy Discussion Rate | 93.5% | 87.2% |
| Avg. Messages per Agent | 31.2 | 27.4 |
| Avg. Rounds to Completion | 8.3 | 12.7 |
| Level | Leader Rate | w/ Leader | w/o Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | 27.5% | 56.8% | 62.1% |
| II | 21.8% | 23.5% | 59.0% |
| III | 23.8% | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Scaffold | L-I SR | L-II SR | L-III SR |
|---|---|---|---|
| No scaffold (baseline) | 62.9 | 39.9 | 11.5 |
| +Planning round | 64.3 | 47.2 | 17.8 |
| +Protocol reminder | 65.1 | 41.3 | 12.1 |
| +Scratchpad hint | 63.7 | 44.6 | 14.9 |