Several works have explored multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) in LLM collaboration. However, constructing reliable rewards is difficult in practice, as complete and accurate metrics are often unavailable and hard to aggregate. Preference learning provides an alternative by learning from comparative human or AI feedback. Yet, its extension to multi-agent systems remains underexplored. To address this gap, we formulate preference-based multi-agent systems (MAS) from decentralized and centralized collaboration perspectives. We also introduce a general multi-agent preference learning framework (MAPL) to solve these problems. MAPL allows iterative updates by comparing the current solution with decentralized or centralized solutions generated by various agents. We instantiate MAPL using MARL from human feedback (MARLHF) with a learned reward model and multi-agent direct preference optimization (MADPO). Experiments on collaborative writing, coding, tool use, and travel planning show that MAPL can improve collaboration quality and efficiency while approaching the performance of MARL with fixed, well-defined rewards. Within MAPL, MARLHF generally outperforms MADPO on most tasks but remains sensitive to data coverage, agent and comparator models, and the underlying MARL algorithms.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of the MAPL framework and methods. (a) Decentralized and centralized MAS; (b) MAPL framework; (c) Procedures of MARLHF and MADPO.
Figure 2: A comparison of MARLHF ( red ) and MADPO ( blue ) under Dec-Dec, Cen-Cen and Dec-Cen on TLDR , CoopHE , BFCL , and Travel across 5 runs. Dotted and dashed lines denote the performance of MAGRPO on decentralized and centralized MAS. Results are normalized to the reward scale w.r.t. each domain.
Method
TLDR
CoopHE
BFCL
Travel
Score
Pass
Call
Correct
Costs
Pass
Success
(a) Single Agent
Raw Model
30.3
56.3
N/A
47.5
2.4
71.3
9.6
GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 )
91.7
61.8
N/A
50.2
2.5
74.5
25.0
PPO ( Schulman et al., 2017 )
94.5
62.5
N/A
56.3
2.5
73.2
14.5
RLHF ( Christiano et al., 2017 )
79.4
65.0
N/A
48.3
2.3
75.6
5.6
Table 1: Evaluation results of MAPL and baseline methods on TLDR , CoopHE , BFCL , and Travel across 5 runs: Score measures the summary quality; Pass denotes the pass rate; Call denotes the invocation rate of aux( ⋅ ) ; Correct is the functional correctness rate; Costs measures the number of calls per agent; Pass is the commonsense pass rate; Success is the final pass rate with more constraints. Underline and bold indicate the best results across MAPL and all methods. † and ‡ denote pivots for the ablation studies in Table 2 .
Method
TLDR
CoopHE
BFCL
Travel
Score
Pass
Correct
Pass
(a) Replay Buffer
MARLHF ( λ -Decay) †
86.3
61.0
22.7
70.5
MARLHF (Offline)
70.9 ( ↓ 15.4)
46.4 ( ↓ 14.6)
7.5 ( ↓ 15.2)
63.6 ( ↓ 6.9)
MARLHF (Online)
76.0 ( ↓ 10.3)
59.7 ( ↓ 1.3)
14.8 ( ↓ 7.9)
69.8 ( ↓ 0.7)
MADPO ( λ -Decay) ‡
92.9
58.8
15.6
41.5
Table 2: Ablation results on (a) replay buffers, (b) comparators, and (c) MARLHF methods under Dec-Dec. Pivot entries † and ‡ reported in Table 1 use the λ -decay buffer, agent-size comparator, and MAGRPO. Parenthesized values show absolute changes relative to the corresponding pivot, where ↑ denotes an increase and ↓ denotes a decrease. Best results within each ablation are reported in bold , best results for each method within each ablation are underlined .
Figure 3: Evaluation results (a-d) and data distribution shift (e-h) of MARLHF and MADPO on offline ( brown and green ), online ( orange and purple ), λ -decay ( red and blue ) replay buffers. Curves are smoothed by an exponential moving average, and shaded regions indicate the standard deviation. Triangles mark the start of iterations. Data distributions are fitted with a Gaussian. Curves with higher opacity indicate later iterations.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Algorithm 1 MARLHF under Dec-Dec
Algorithm 2 MADPO under Dec-Dec
Figure 4: A Venn diagram of different comparator policies.
Configuration
TLDR
CoopHE
BFCL
Travel
Task
Dataset
trl-lib/tldr
OpenMLRL/CoopHumanEval
BFCL
osunlp/TravelPlanner
Filter
None
None
parallel & parallel_multiple
days ⩽ 5 & visiting_city_num ⩽ 2
Training
train [0,250)
train [16:82)
data [0:160)
validation [0:60)
Evaluation
eval [0, 250)
train [0:16)
data [160:200)
validation [60:82)
Model
Appendix
Table 3: Task and model configurations. Unless otherwise specified, the agents, comparators, and reward model in MARLHF share the same model configuration. The filtered subsets preserve the original order.
Hyperparameter
TLDR
CoopHE
BFCL
Travel
Comparator
Generation mode (Dec)
decentralized
decentralized
decentralized
decentralized
Generation mode (Cen)
centralized
centralized
centralized
centralized
Model
current
current
current_copy
current_copy
Preference dataset pairs
20
20
20
20
Replay Buffer
Appendix
Table 4: Comparator, replay buffer, and optimization hyperparameters.
Figure 5: Ablation on different sizes of D for offline MARLHF and MADPO ( brown and green ) across 5 runs.
Figure 6: Ablation on the different replay buffers for MARLHF ( red ) and MADPO ( blue ) across 5 runs. We consider the decentralized MAS. † and ‡ denote the pivot settings for MARLHF and MADPO, respectively.
Figure 7: Results of MARLHF and MADPO on TLDR , CoopHE , BFCL , and Travel across 5 runs.
Figure 8: Ablation on the different comparators used in MARLHF and MADPO across 5 runs, ϖdec in red and blue , ϖcen in blue-green and orange , respectively. We consider decentralized MAS. † denotes the pivot settings.
Figure 9: Results of MARLHF and MADPO on TLDR, CoopHE, BFCL, and Travel across 5 runs.
Figure 10: Ablation on different MAS configurations. Green curves present the performance before training, red and blue show results via MARLHF and MADPO training. Hyperparameters are the same as in Table 4 .
Method
BFCL
Travel
Two-Agent †
Three-Agent
Two-Agent †
Three-Agent
Raw MAS
12.8
17.5
66.2
63.1
MARLHF
22.7
18.4
70.5
72.6
MADPO
15.6
15.1
41.5
44.3
Appendix
Table 5: Performance of two-agent and three-agent MAS on BFCL and Travel. We report Correct for BFCL and Pass for Travel. Raw MAS denotes parallel inference with raw LLMs.
Method
GPUs
Duration
Model Placement
Peak GPU VRAM
Agents
Reward
Comparator
cuda:0
cuda:1
cuda:2
Total
TLDR
MAGRPO (Dec)
1 × RTX
12 h
cuda:0
N/A
N/A
40
N/A
N/A
40
MAGRPO (Cen)
1 × B200
10 h
cuda:0
N/A
N/A
50
N/A
N/A
50
MARLHF (Offline)
1 × B200
12 h
cuda:0
cuda:0
N/A
55
N/A
N/A
55
MARLHF (Dec-Dec)
1 × RTX
15 h
cuda:0
cuda:0
cuda:0
75
N/A
N/A
75
Appendix
Table 6: Experimental devices and the peak GPU memory usage (GB) during training. RTX and H100 represent the RTX 6000 Pro Blackwell and H100 PCIe editions, respectively. The VRAM on each device is rounded to the nearest 5 GB, total VRAM sums the rounded values.
Effective collaboration among large language model (LLM) agents in multi-agent systems requires sharing relevant evidence, requesting missing information, and incorporating teammates' contributions into decisions. Training these behaviors is challenging because final task outcomes provide limited feedback on the value of individual messages. We introduce CoSIR (Collaboration via Surprisal-based Information Rewards), a post-training approach that uses a simple, verifiable environment to teach collaboration behaviors that generalize to more complex, unseen tasks. We propose a Bayesian evaluator that scores shared information by its reduction in team surprisal, defined as the sum of the negative log probabilities assigned to the correct option given each agent's available evidence. Requests are scored by the potential reduction in the same quantity if the requested information were truthfully provided. Separate rewards encourage agents to use the received information in their private choices and calculations. We post-train Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B, and Gemma-3-4B-it through self-play and evaluate transfer to seven unseen natural-language collaboration tasks. CoSIR achieves the highest aggregate score, while its performance in general tasks remains competitive. Behavioral analyses show increased disclosure of private evidence and fewer judged failures to use teammates' input.
Keru Chen, Sen Lin, Yingbin Liang +2
School of ECEE, Arizona State University · Computer Science Department, University of Houston · Department of ECE, The Ohio State University +1
LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a promising paradigm for enhancing complex reasoning through role specialization and collaboration, yet a key challenge remains: how can collaboration be adapted to a backbone's competence on the current query? This problem matters because more collaboration is not always better--richer coordination may help on difficult cases, but it also incurs additional token cost and redundant interactions. We propose a two-stage competence-aware framework for automatic MAS orchestration. It first models the LLM backbone's task-conditioned competence for the current query, and then uses this signal to adapt role activation and the communication graph. Across six benchmarks, our method achieves an average score of 93.81%. Experiments with six LLM backbones of varying competence levels further show that our method adjusts collaboration according to the inferred competence: for higher-competence backbones, it improves average accuracy from 87.22 to 89.97 while reducing token cost by 36.26%; for lower-competence backbones, it yields a further average gain of 4.58 points over existing methods. The same trend also holds on unseen backbones.
Recent work has explored optimizing LLM collaboration through Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL), but many approaches still rely on predefined workflows, limiting efficiency and scalability. Decentralized LLM collaboration is challenging because agents execute independently with limited communication, share a joint objective, and must infer useful information from communication traces. In this paper, we propose BCMAAC, a Belief-Conditioned Multi-Agent Actor-Critic method that maintains beliefs over contextual information and uses them to facilitate training. Experiments on Minecraft game-playing, web searching and tool-using tasks show that BCMAAC improves task performance and collaborative behavior compared to naive actor-critic baselines. The improvements are particularly pronounced in multi-turn tasks with richer contextual information, where belief modeling provides a clear advantage.
Tianle Chen, Shuo Liu, Christopher Amato
Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA