Context-Mediated Domain Adaptation in Multi-Agent Sensemaking Systems

Multi-agent systems bring together language model agents with different roles to propose, review, and refine solutions. Each agent's response depends on its model's capabilities, the reasoning strategy defined by its system prompt, and the information in its input context. Existing frameworks often adapt communication by changing this context while leaving individual prompts fixed, even when a problem calls for different skills. We study whether agents' initial responses can identify a strategy better suited to the current problem and guide its transfer to other agents. To address this, we introduce SAGE (Self-Adapting Group of Experts), a training-free framework that uses answer agreement, prefix consistency, and reciprocal peer review to select a strategy donor. SAGE transfers the selected donor's reasoning strategy to the other agents while preserving their original roles. This transfer uses only the agents' original system prompts, without access to the problem or generated solutions. After strategy adaptation, agents exchange responses through a dynamic, sparse directed acyclic graph that routes information from higher-scoring agents to lower-scoring agents. Experiments across multiple agent backbones and reasoning benchmarks show that SAGE achieves higher average accuracy than the evaluated baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/atifquamar07/sage.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are reshaping the industrial landscape. However, most practical agents still rely on human-designed scaffolds, making their creation and adaptation across diverse domains labor-intensive. This situation poses a central question: can we automatically create and evolve domain agents through interaction experience in real-world environments? While recent approaches have sought to automate agent creation, several treat scaffold optimization as a black-box procedure guided primarily by final performance metrics. Such strategies overlook critical evidence explaining why an agent succeeds or fails and often incur high computational costs. To address these limitations, we propose ReCreate, an experience-driven framework for creating and evolving specialized domain agents. ReCreate systematically leverages agent interaction histories to identify the causes of success and failure and guide targeted scaffold updates. Specifically, we introduce an agent-as-optimizer paradigm in which an optimizer agent actively inspects execution experience and iteratively refines the task agent's scaffold through three key components: (i) an experience storage and retrieval mechanism for on-demand evidence inspection; (ii) a reasoning-creating synergy pipeline that translates execution evidence into updates to prompts, workflows, tools, and memory; and (iii) hierarchical updates that consolidate instance-level refinements into reusable domain-level improvements. Experiments across thirteen evaluation settings spanning four domains show that ReCreate consistently outperforms human-designed agents and existing automated agent generation and self-evolving baselines, even when evolving from minimal seed scaffolds.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems are designed to improve reasoning by decomposing tasks across multiple agents with specialized functions, but the presence of multiple agents does not inherently guarantee coherent reasoning or outputs that align with task objectives. This paper introduces a quantitative ethnographic (QE) approach for diagnosing and redesigning multi-agent LLM systems based on the discourse produced through agent interactions. We test this approach using automated essay scoring as an example context, applying Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) to model a five-agent multi-agent debate system and examine differences between debates that produced correct versus incorrect scoring decisions. Results show that, in the initial system, correct scoring decisions were characterized by rubric-grounded justification, agreement, and elaboration. Incorrect scoring decisions, in contrast, were characterized by extended proposition-challenge-response exchanges that were less consistently tied to rubric criteria. We then used the findings to revise the agents' prompts. The revised system improved exact scoring accuracy from 27.78% to 40.28% and shifted the discourse of incorrect debates toward the rubric-grounded pattern of correct ones, making the two nearly indistinguishable. Based on these results, we argue that QE can support a diagnostic-to-redesign loop for AI reasoning by tracing how patterns of agent interaction relate to system performance, informing prompt redesign, and evaluating whether those redesigns change both outcomes and interaction patterns.