Organizations: GSAI, Renmin University of China · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
Recent progress on long-horizon agentic tasks has been driven largely by scaling up individual agents through stronger models, better tools, and more effective scaffolding. In contrast, much less is understood about scaling out: whether multiple peer agents, all targeting the same task, can become an additional source of capability without relying on explicit role specialization or workflow orchestration. We study this question and propose AgentFugue, a collective reasoning framework built around a shared reasoning hub. As peer agents explore the same task in parallel, the hub records concise notes on what each agent has established, attempted, or ruled out, and enables each agent to selectively access what other agents have discovered in a form useful for its current search. This design turns otherwise isolated trajectories into a connected ecology of reusable intermediate reasoning without requiring centralized planning. We instantiate the hub as a plug-in communication layer, trained with supervised fine-tuning and end-to-end reinforcement learning. Across the challenging long-horizon settings we study, AgentFugue improves over strong baselines. Our results suggest that collective reasoning can turn scaling out peer agent systems into a distinct source of capability gains, rather than merely a way of spending more compute.
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.
Michael Rizvi-Martel, Satwik Bhattamishra, Neil Rathi +2
The rapid advancement of large language models and single-agent harnesses has reshaped the landscape of autonomous systems, raising a critical question of when multi-agent collaboration offers genuine value. As individual agent capabilities continue to scale, multi-agent collaboration faces diminishing returns while incurring growing context overhead. Through systematic analysis, we delineate the capability boundaries of multi-agent collaboration relative to single-agent alternatives, showing that it confers systematic benefits specifically in long-horizon tasks with sparse dependencies, while single-agent harnesses remain superior in tightly coupled, sequential workflows. Building on these insights, we propose SAIGE, a lightweight multi-agent collaboration mechanism based on Semantic-Aware Incremental Graph Evolution. SAIGE models collaboration as a dynamically evolving graph, where nodes are agent instances spawned on demand and edges encode semantic dependencies established through content-based information retrieval. Experiments on long-horizon, complex task benchmarks show that SAIGE achieves a favorable trade-off between context efficiency and task performance, and that scaling the agent pool or deepening the recursion level does not consistently improve outcomes. Our findings suggest that multi-agent superiority is bounded by task structure rather than universal, and that more agents do not necessarily make a system more intelligent.
Collective intelligence refers to the ability of a group to achieve outcomes beyond what any individual member can accomplish alone. As large language model agents scale to populations of millions, a key question arises: Does collective intelligence emerge spontaneously from scale? We present the first empirical evaluation of this question in a large-scale autonomous agent society. Studying MoltBook, a platform hosting over two million agents, we introduce Superminds Test, a hierarchical framework that probes society-level intelligence using controlled Probing Agents across three tiers: joint reasoning, information synthesis, and basic interaction. Our experiments reveal a stark absence of collective intelligence. The society fails to outperform individual frontier models on complex reasoning tasks, rarely synthesizes distributed information, and often fails even trivial coordination tasks. Platform-wide analysis further shows that interactions remain shallow, with threads rarely extending beyond a single reply and most responses being generic or off-topic. These results suggest that collective intelligence does not emerge from scale alone. Instead, the dominant limitation of current agent societies is extremely sparse and shallow interaction, which prevents agents from exchanging information and building on each other's outputs.