Inference-Time Graph Engineering for Multi-Agent LLM Workflows
Organizations: Meta · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Work done at Meta
Abstract
Recent multi-agent LLM systems increasingly rely on graph-structured communication to coordinate specialized agents. We revisit multi-agent orchestration from a graph-engineering perspective: rather than optimizing a static topology, we synthesize a task-conditioned temporal workflow graph that jointly specifies agent connectivity and edge-level communication semantics. We introduce ReActNet, a training-free framework that compiles a query and a set of role-specialized agents into a sequence of directed communication graphs. Each graph snapshot corresponds to one reasoning stage, and each edge carries a natural-language instruction specifying the message that a source agent should provide to a target agent. The compiled temporal graph is then executed through structured message passing: agents update their reasoning states by integrating their previous states with messages from controller-assigned neighbors, and a final aggregator synthesizes the resulting states into the answer. This design separates graph compilation from graph execution, making multi-agent coordination explicit, inspectable, and task-conditioned without requiring reinforcement learning or gradient-based topology optimization. Across knowledge reasoning, mathematical problem solving, code generation, and GAIA-style assistant tasks, ReActNet consistently improves over fixed-topology and learned-topology baselines while maintaining competitive inference cost. These results suggest that effective multi-agent orchestration depends not only on which agents communicate, but also on engineering executable workflow graphs that encode when, why, and how information should flow during reasoning.
Figures & tables
| Method / Dataset | MMLU | GSM8K | MultiArith | SVAMP | AQuA | HumanEval | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vanilla | 82.14 | 85.40 | 93.15 | 87.18 | 70.34 | 71.68 | 81.65 |
| CoT ( Wei et al., 2022 ) | 82.65 ↑0.51 | 87.17 ↑1.77 | 94.79 ↑1.64 | 88.32 ↑1.14 | 73.91 ↑3.57 | 75.52 ↑3.84 | 83.73 |
| ComplexCoT ( Fu et al., 2022 ) | 83.78 ↑1.64 | 87.62 ↑2.22 | 95.86 ↑2.71 | 90.17 ↑2.99 | 77.58 ↑7.24 | 74.94 ↑3.26 | 84.99 |
| SC (CoT) ( Wang et al., 2023 ) | 82.66 ↑0.52 | 87.93 ↑2.53 | 96.88 ↑3.73 | 88.69 ↑1.51 | 75.08 ↑4.74 | 77.30 ↑5.62 | 84.75 |
| SC (ComplexCoT) ( Wang et al., 2023 ) | 83.65 ↑1.51 | 86.14 ↑0.74 | 96.94 ↑3.79 | 89.72 ↑2.54 | 77.69 ↑7.35 | 77.94 ↑6.26 | 85.35 |
| PHP ( Zheng et al., 2023 ) | 83.45 ↑1.31 | 95.50 ↑10.1 | 98.10 ↑2.84 | 90.02 ↑3.44 | 79.00 ↑8.66 | 82.96 ↑11.36 | 88.17 |
| Method | Perf. | #Training | #Inference | #Overall | Training | Inference |
| Token | Token | Token | Time | Time | ||
| Complete Graph ( Qian et al., 2024 ) | 86.4 | — | — | 2.4h | ||
| DyLAN Liu et al. (2023) | 88.1 | 2.8h | 4.6h | |||
| GPTSwarm ( Zhuge et al., 2024 ) | 89.7 | 2.1h | 2.8h | |||
| G-Designer ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) | 95.0 | 0.3h | 2.3h | |||
| ReActNet (Ours) | 94.4 | — | — | — | 1.7h |
| Method | Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chain ( Qian et al., 2024 ) | Accuracy (%) | 70.59 | 71.24 | 71.98 |
| Time (min) | 15.73 | 30.20 | 56.18 | |
| #Prompt Tokens | 351,802 | 702,164 | 1,378,328 | |
| Cost (USD) | 0.5228 | 1.0434 | 2.0482 | |
| Complete Graph ( Qian et al., 2024 ) | Accuracy (%) | 71.90 | 72.16 | 72.51 |
| Time (min) | 16.85 | 34.21 | 66.47 |
| Method | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| DyLAN ( Liu et al., 2023 ) | 11.52 |
| GPTSwarm ( Zhuge et al., 2024 ) | 11.52 |
| G-Designer ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) | 10.91 |
| ReActNet (Ours) | 12.72 |
| Method | Metric Score (pass@1) |
|---|---|
| G-Designer ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) | 89.90 |
| ReActNet ( | 90.32 |
| ReActNet ( | 92.74 |
| ReActNet ( | 89.52 |
| Base Model | Baseline | MMLU | GSM8K |
|---|---|---|---|
| Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | G-Designer ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) | 85.62 | 95.87 |
| ReActNet (Ours) | 88.89 | 95.34 | |
| Claude Sonnet 4 | G-Designer ( Zhang et al., 2025 ) | 84.31 | 96.63 |
| ReActNet (Ours) | 93.46 | 95.86 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Category | Dataset | Answer Type | #Test Queries |
|---|---|---|---|
| General reasoning | MMLU | Multi-choice | 153 |
| Math reasoning | GSM8K | Number | 1,319 |
| MultiArith | Number | 600 | |
| SVAMP | Number | 1,000 | |
| AQuA | Multi-choice | 254 | |
| Code generation | HumanEval | Code | 164 |