cs.MAAug 24, 2026

The Interaction Tax: When Communication Erases Diversity in Multi-Agent Teams

Authors: Summer Eunhyung Ann, Haokun Liu, Chenhao Tan

Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Abstract

Does multi-agent LLM interaction help or hurt? Some work reports gains from debate (Du et al., 2024), critique loops (Chen et al., 2025), and mixture-of-agents synthesis (Wang et al., 2025), while other work finds that interaction adds cost without improving quality under equal budgets (Tran & Kiela, 2026; Xu et al., 2026; Jarrett et al., 2025), or that independent sampling already captures multi-agent gains (Li et al., 2024). We argue this contradiction partly reflects a missing distinction, because not all multi-agent communication is equal. Different model families find structurally different solutions, but when agents read each other's complete outputs, their proposals converge within one round, erasing the diversity that motivates using multiple models. We call this the interaction tax. We test 11 verifier-scored optimization tasks under matched budgets and find that full-solution interaction is a weak default. Independent proposal generation avoids this collapse. Full-solution interaction mainly makes agents stay close to the first solution they see instead of trying different approaches, and critique helps only if the violated rule is easy for the LLM to find and fix. These results suggest that multi-agent performance depends less on the number of agents than on the information they exchange, and interaction helps only when agents share the right information at the right time.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables28 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Feb 23, 2026

Interaction Theater: A case of LLM Agents Interacting at Scale

As multi-agent architectures and agent-to-agent protocols proliferate, a fundamental question arises: what actually happens when autonomous LLM agents interact at scale? We study this question empirically using data from Moltbook, an AI-agent-only social platform, with 800K posts, 3.5M comments, and 78K agent profiles. We combine lexical metrics (Jaccard specificity), embedding-based semantic similarity, and LLM-as-judge validation to characterize agent interaction quality. Our findings reveal agents produce diverse, well-formed text that creates the surface appearance of active discussion, but the substance is largely absent. Specifically, while most agents (67.5%67.5\%) vary their output across contexts, 65%65\% of comments share no distinguishing content vocabulary with the post they appear under, and information gain from additional comments decays rapidly. LLM judge based metrics classify the dominant comment types as spam (28%28\%) and off-topic content (22%22\%). Embedding-based semantic analysis confirms that lexically generic comments are also semantically generic. Agents rarely engage in threaded conversation (5%5\% of comments), defaulting instead to independent top-level responses. We discuss implications for multi-agent interaction design, arguing that coordination mechanisms must be explicitly designed; without them, even large populations of capable agents produce parallel output rather than productive exchange.
Mar 20, 2026

When Agents Disagree: The Selection Bottleneck in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines

Multi-agent LLM pipelines produce contradictory evidence on whether team diversity improves output quality: heterogeneous Mixture-of-Agents teams outperform single models, yet homogeneous Self-MoA teams consistently win under synthesis-based aggregation. We propose a resolution by identifying the selection bottleneck -- a crossover threshold in aggregation quality that determines whether diversity helps or hurts. Under this model, we obtain a closed-form crossover threshold s∗s^* (Proposition 1) that separates the regimes where diversity helps and hurts. In a targeted experiment spanning 42 tasks across 7 categories (N=210N=210), a diverse team with judge-based selection achieves a win rate of 0.810 against a single-model baseline, while a homogeneous team scores 0.512 -- near chance (Glass's Δ=2.07Δ= 2.07). Judge-based selection outperforms MoA-style synthesis by ΔWR=+0.631Δ_{\mathrm{WR}} = +0.631 -- the synthesis approach is preferred over the baseline in zero of 42 tasks by the judge panel. A decoupled evaluation with independent judges confirms all directional findings (Spearman ρ=0.90ρ= 0.90). Exploratory evidence suggests that including a weaker model improves performance while reducing cost (p<10−4p < 10^{-4}, not pre-registered). Our results suggest that selector quality may be a more impactful design lever than generator diversity in single-round generate-then-select pipelines.
Sep 28, 2026

Prompted Identity Degrades Cooperation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly mix models from several providers, yet exposing each agent's underlying model identity to its peers significantly impairs cooperation. We show that when agents are aware of each other's model family, the group splits into clusters, where agents prefer interacting with others carrying their same label, although nothing in the task rewards or asks for such a split. We argue that the label itself causes this split, which we define as factionalism\textit{factionalism}. We show and measure this phenomenon in two cooperative games and on a reasoning benchmark, with nine to twenty-five agents drawn from up to five open-weight model families. We further show that when the announced families are shuffled, or replaced by arbitrary labels, the factions still follow this information; when the label is removed, this behavior disappears. In strictly cooperative tasks, labeled groups spend on average 30%30\% more rounds and 55%55\% more tokens to reach a decision, and their success rate drops from 96%96\% to 81%81\%. The effect replicates across tasks, group sizes and model families. Withholding identity labels from the agents is simple and effective mitigation.