Leveraging the Learning Curve: Reusing Existing Architectural Patterns to Design and Implement MAS

The emergence of agentic AI and LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) presents unprecedented opportunities for automating complex tasks, while simultaneously raising critical concerns about the preservation of fundamental human-centered values, such as privacy, fairness, and safety. Although software engineering has traditionally focused on functional correctness, the adoption of LLMs and AI agents into complex socio-technical systems has intensified the need for responsible software engineering and robust value alignment. In MAS, architectural design decisions, such as coordination mechanisms, communication protocols, and system topologies, play a central role in shaping system behavior and the outcomes they produce. This paper argues that architectural choices influence not only the functionality and performance of MAS but can also promote value-oriented system behavior. Therefore, we investigate how different architectural designs support different human-centered values, discussing the following value-preserving architectural patterns: (i) a privacy-aware architecture with a federated topology, (ii) a distributed architecture to promote pluralism and diversity, and (iii) a guard-agent architecture to detect and mitigate unfairness. Finally, we introduce representative use cases to illustrate the proposed architectures in real-world scenarios. By linking architectural design with human-centered values, this work lays the foundation for a unified set of architectural patterns and guidelines towards the design of trustworthy MAS.

Prevailing wisdom posits that Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are superior to Single-Agent Systems (SAS), citing advantages like context protection, parallel processing and distributed decision-making. However, empirical support for this claim relies primarily on comparisons with SAS baselines using benchmarks that prioritize isolated reasoning tasks, which do not adequately assess these advantages. Focusing on automatically generated MAS that are designed for enhanced generalizability over manually-designed counterparts, we perform a rigorous, systematic evaluation against SAS, specifically Chain-of-Thought with Self-Consistency (CoT-SC). Across traditional reasoning datasets and tasks with interactive multi-step workflows (e.g., BrowseComp-Plus), we demonstrate that automatic MAS consistently underperform CoT-SC despite being up to 10x more expensive. To isolate these failures from limitations inherent to task structure, we introduce a diagnostic synthetic dataset tailored for MAS featuring explicit task decomposition, context separation and parallelization potential. We show that expert-architected MAS consistently outperforms automatically generated architectures in both raw performance and cost-efficiency on this dataset, demonstrating that existing evaluation frameworks mask critical architectural gaps and inefficiencies of complex MAS by failing to account for the marginal utility of increased computational cost. Critically, systematic deconstruction of the generated MAS architectures reveals that current automated design paradigms produce architectural bloat that prioritizes superficial complexity which does not translate into functional utility, exposing a fundamental misalignment with multi-agent principles.

LLM-based multi-agent systems have the potential to enable collective intelligence and scale toward solving highly complex tasks through coordinated ensembles of specialized agents. However, despite their theoretical potential, the architectural design space remains largely non-systematized and lacks broadly established design principles. Furthermore, the scalability characteristics of such systems are only partially understood so far. This paper makes two contributions. We first distill four design principles for scalable MAS architectures from a structured analysis of prior work: simplicity, elastic feedback, sequential workflows with optional loops, and summary-based communication. We operationalize these principles in a reference architecture whose topology is formalized as a constrained directed workflow graph, and we evaluate four configurations of increasing complexity on a standardized benchmark of terminal-based system engineering tasks using two LLMs of differing capability. Our findings show that scaling yields measurable accuracy improvements with approximately linear cost growth, but only when the underlying LLM exceeds a minimum capability threshold. Performance peaks at intermediate complexity, then degrades due to timeouts and evaluation limitations. In addition, persistent consistency issues emerge as a central challenge across all scaling levels. These results provide concrete design guidance for practitioners and highlight consistency and evaluation standardization as key targets for future research.