Recursive Organization Improvement: A Modeling Specification for Human--Agent Organizations

Autonomous agents operating in open-world tasks -- where the completion boundary is not given in advance -- face denominator blindness: they systematically underestimate the scope of the target space. Forage V1 addressed this through co-evolving evaluation (an independent Evaluator discovers what "complete" means) and method isolation (Evaluator and Planner cannot see each other's code). V2 extends the architecture from a single expedition to a learning organization: experience accumulates across runs, transfers across model capabilities, and institutional safeguards prevent knowledge degradation. We demonstrate two claims across three task types (web scraping, API queries, mathematical reasoning). Knowledge accumulation: over six runs, knowledge entries grow from 0 to 54, and denominator estimates stabilize as domain understanding deepens. Knowledge transfer: a weaker agent (Sonnet) seeded with a stronger agent's (Opus) knowledge narrows a 6.6pp coverage gap to 1.1pp, halves cost (9.40 to 5.13 USD), converges in half the rounds (mean 4.5 vs. 7.0), and three independent seeded runs arrive at exactly the same denominator estimate (266), suggesting organizational knowledge calibrates evaluation itself. V2's contribution is architectural: it designs institutions -- audit separation, contract protocols, organizational memory -- that make any agent more reliable upon entry. The accumulated experience is organizational, model-agnostic, and transferable, stored as readable documents that any future agent inherits regardless of provider or capability level.

Language model agents serving organizations must coordinate requests from multiple users while using knowledge distributed across their interactions. We identify two complementary capabilities for this setting, namely cross-user interaction and decision-making, as well as cross-user memory and knowledge use. Both capabilities are governed by organizational constraints across three aspects: user identity, authority, and access permissions; the attribution and temporal validity of information; and rules for resolving conflicting requirements across users and completion requirements for joint decisions. These constraints shape what information or decisions must be obtained before an action can proceed and what conditions must be satisfied during its execution. Motivated by this, we introduce Org-Agent, a unified constraint-centric reasoning framework that organizes task execution in three stages. Specifically, Org-Agent decomposes a task into atomic subtasks and constructs a task dependency graph whose edges encode the dependencies among them. Building on this graph, it schedules the subtasks in dependency order through topological sorting. It then executes each subtask while accounting for the task's constraints, supported by evidence-acquisition and memory-management tools. Experiments on MUSES-Bench and GroupMemBench demonstrate the effectiveness of Org-Agent on both capabilities, and ablations further support the contributions of dependency modeling and tool use.

Collective intelligence depends not only on the capabilities of individual members, but also on how those members are organized. Yet artificial multi-agent systems are typically assembled using fixed organizational structures, even when the physical tasks they perform impose fundamentally different coordination requirements. Here we show that principles from human organization theory can be operationalized to organize large, heterogeneous collectives of embodied artificial agents. We introduce ORCH (Organizing Roles and Coordination Hierarchies), which constructs task-specific hierarchical organizations by combining pooled interdependence for work that can proceed concurrently with sequential interdependence for work governed by prerequisite relationships. Across 25 wildfire-response missions spanning reconnaissance, rescue, transportation, resource management, containment and suppression, we evaluated teams of up to 50 heterogeneous agents using eight large language models. Organizations constructed using these principles consistently outperformed four representative embodied multi-agent approaches across mission outcome, execution efficiency, exploration and computational resource use. Human-designed ORCH organizations improved final score by 63.97% and execution efficiency by 74.29% on average relative to the four prior frameworks. Organizations generated automatically by language models improved these measures by 43.63% and 52.53%, respectively. These advantages persisted across missions and underlying language models. Notably, collective performance was not monotonically determined by model scale. Analysis of long-horizon missions showed that hierarchical organization enabled teams to preserve concurrent activity within specialized groups while coordinating ordered transitions between mission phases.