SquidAgent: Parallelize Wisely, Coordinate Efficiently

Yexiong Lin; Shanshan Ye; Yu Yao; Zhen Fang; Bo Han; Tongliang Liu

cs.AIOct 6, 2026

SquidAgent: Parallelize Wisely, Coordinate Efficiently

Authors: Yexiong Lin, Shanshan Ye, Yu Yao, Zhen Fang, Bo Han, Tongliang Liu

Organizations: The University of Sydney · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · University of Technology Sydney · Hong Kong Baptist University

Abstract

LLM-based agents solve complex multi-step tasks, but sequential execution incurs substantial latency. In principle, parallelizing work across multiple agents should yield near-linear speedups. Yet existing parallel multi-agent systems often run slower than a single-agent baseline. We attribute this gap to two hidden costs that parallel execution incurs but a serial agent avoids. First, there is a re-exploration cost: redundant effort spent by parallel workers reconstructing context that the orchestrator already possesses, such as prior decisions, that would otherwise be inherited implicitly in a serial execution. Second, there is an alignment cost: the overhead required to reconcile inconsistencies across independently generated outputs. We thus derive a principled decision criterion: a layer should be parallelized only when its critical-path cost, plus re-exploration and alignment overheads, is lower than the corresponding serial cost. While this criterion is naturally expressed in wall-clock time, we observe that LLMs are poorly calibrated when asked to estimate task duration. To address this, we instead measure cost in predicted output tokens, which we empirically find LLMs can estimate substantially more reliably than wall-clock time. Building on this token-based criterion, we propose SquidAgent. It estimates all token budgets in a single planning step, forks each worker directly from the orchestrator's session to eliminate re-exploration cost, and replaces post-hoc reconciliation with a pre-generated shared convention block that converts alignment into a bounded upfront cost. A deterministic scheduler then applies the criterion layer by layer. Empirically, SquidAgent achieves a 2.2 $\times$ mean throughput improvement and a 2.6 $\times$ mean wall-time speedup over Claude Code, and a 2.0 $\times$ throughput improvement over the strongest multi-agent baseline.

Figures & tables

Figure 1 : Comparison of two execution strategies on a task with four subtasks. (a) Sequential: a single agent executes all tasks one by one with no overhead. (b) Naive parallel: workers run concurrently but incur re-exploration cost (orange: orchestrator planning plus per-worker rediscovery of shared context) and alignment cost (red: fixing conflicts between independently produced outputs), making the total time exceed the sequential baseline.

Method	Pixel.	Shop.	Comp.	Arcade.	Slide.	Climate.	LinAlg.	Math.	Cloud.	Overall
	Heavy						Medium
SquidAgent	21.0	35.1	16.1	52.6	47.7	27.7	46.3	48.1	48.2	38.1 $\pm$ 12.8
Claude Code	5.0	16.7	3.7	17.5	19.9	13.5	22.6	26.7	29.6	17.2 $\pm$ 8.3
SeqCV	5.3	15.6	4.0	14.0	18.1	15.8	21.8	27.9	15.6	15.3 $\pm$ 7.0
MetaGPT	12.3	16.3	6.9	8.7	9.7	11.4	20.2	22.4	14.3	13.6 $\pm$ 4.9
AFlow	4.2	8.8	3.7	14.8	12.7	9.5	16.8	18.3	15.4	11.6 $\pm$ 5.0

Table 1 : Deliverable throughput (words/s) across 9 evaluation tasks. Computed as deliverable output divided by wall time. Higher is better. Bold indicates the best result per task.

Panel of Figure 2 — Figure 2 : Scheduler sensitivity analysis. (a) Estimated cost ratio $\widehat{\rho}_{k}$ versus actual cost ratio measured after execution, across 14 multi-task dependency layers from 9 evaluation tasks. Layer 0 and Layer 1 correspond to the first and second dependency layers in the orchestrator-generated task DAG. (b) Throughput on MathRef under different safety margins $\alpha$ , with the task DAG and token estimates held fixed. For $\alpha\geq 2.0$ , Layer 1 changes from parallel to serial execution, which improves throughput because the alignment cost of cross-referencing appendices exceeds the parallelism benefit.

Method	Math.	Cloud.	Slide.	Climate.	Mean
SquidAgent	48.10	48.20	47.70	27.70	42.93
Without scheduling	35.54	31.70	31.37	17.96	29.14
Without session forking	41.22	33.02	30.26	19.04	30.88
Without convention planning	39.90	35.33	32.78	22.50	32.63

Table 3: Component-wise ablation: deliverable throughput (words/s) on four tasks. Higher is better.

Prediction	$\rho$	$r_{\log}$
Output tokens	0.77	0.77
Wall-clock time	0.16	0.11

Table 4: Prediction–observation correlations.

Appendix figures & tables7 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Task	Output type	Main coordination challenge	Scale
PixelCraft	Python/Pygame	Independent game modules with shared runtime logic	Large
ShopFlow	Flask + HTML/JS	Backend–frontend consistency and route integration	Large
CompressKit	Python	Modular utilities with shared APIs and tests	Large
ArcadeBox	HTML5 Canvas/JS	Multiple interactive components under one interface	Large
SlideKit	HTML	Consistent slide structure, styling, and navigation	Large
ClimateAnalysis	Python + Markdown	Multi-stage analysis, reporting, and cross-reference consistency	Large

Appendix

Table 5 : Characteristics of the evaluation tasks. Large tasks require substantial software systems or document collections, while medium tasks require smaller but still multi-part outputs with consistency constraints.

Method	Pixel.	Shop.	Comp.	Arcade.	Slide.	Climate.	LinAlg.	Math.	Cloud.	Overall
	Heavy						Medium
SquidAgent	580	404	344	439	1022	464	147	566	383	483 $\pm$ 239
Claude Code	1999	1000	1790	1105	2297	1000	529	757	614	1232 $\pm$ 638
SeqCV	1115	2231	2780	2620	3127	2214	863	2243	3490	2298 $\pm$ 860
MetaGPT	3356	2396	3696	4412	3301	1843	479	969	897	2372 $\pm$ 1403
AFlow	1353	534	949	395	168	189	307	401	307	511 $\pm$ 392

Appendix

Table 6 : Wall time (seconds) across 9 evaluation tasks. Lower is better.

	Heavy						Medium
Method	Pixel.	Shop.	Comp.	Arcade.	Slide.	Climate.	LinAlg.	Math.	Cloud.	Overall
SquidAgent	12,180	14,180	5,538	23,091	48,749	12,853	6,806	27,225	18,461	18,787 $\pm$ 13,260
Claude Code	9,995	16,700	6,623	19,338	45,710	13,500	11,955	20,212	18,174	18,023 $\pm$ 11,328
SeqCV	5,910	34,804	11,120	36,680	56,599	34,981	18,813	62,580	54,444	35,103 $\pm$ 20,269
MetaGPT	41,279	39,055	25,502	38,384	32,020	21,010	9,676	21,706	12,827	26,829 $\pm$ 11,570
AFlow	5,681	4,696	3,511	5,844	2,133	1,796	5,157	7,332	4,728	4,542 $\pm$ 1,790

Appendix

Table 7 : Deliverable output (words) across 9 evaluation tasks. We count only final deliverable files (source code, content documents), excluding intermediate artifacts such as logs, planning documents, and build outputs.

task	Layer	Tasks	$\widehat{C}_{\mathrm{alg}}(\mathcal{L}_{k})$	Ratio	Decision
MathRef	L0: chapters	6	2500	5.09	Parallel
MathRef	L1: appendices	4	6000	1.45	Serial
SlideKit	L0: decks	6	4000	4.80	Parallel
SlideKit	L1: handouts	3	3500	2.00	Parallel
CloudDocs	L0: modules	5	3500	3.31	Parallel
CloudDocs	L1: guides	3	3000	1.64	Serial

Appendix

Table 8 : Scheduler decisions on multi-layer DAG evaluation tasks.

\widehat{C}_{\mathrm{alg}}(\mathcal{L}_{k})

is estimated separately for each layer. The scheduler parallelizes a layer only when the ratio exceeds

\alpha=1.9

Predicted quantity	Kendall’s $\tau_{b}\,\uparrow$	Inverted pairs $\downarrow$
Output-token count	$0.62\ [0.30,0.79]$	$17\%\ [8\%,33\%]$
Wall-clock execution time	$0.12$	$44\%\ [33\%,55\%]$

Appendix

Table 9: Rank-ordering agreement with the corresponding observed quantities. Inverted-pair fractions are computed among non-tied comparisons; brackets report 95% confidence intervals.

Task	Layer	Mean $\widehat{\rho}_{k}$	Range	Decision
MathRef	Chapters	4.64	$[4.53,4.73]$	Parallel
MathRef	Appendices	1.71	$[1.70,1.74]$	Serial
SlideKit	Decks	4.03	$[3.75,4.17]$	Parallel
SlideKit	Handouts	1.71	$[1.53,1.88]$	Serial
CloudDocs	Modules	3.16	$[3.06,3.31]$	Parallel
CloudDocs	Guides	1.63	$[1.44,1.75]$	Serial

Appendix

Table 10: Repeated-planning sensitivity results. Mean and range are across three planning runs; decisions use

\alpha=1.9

Metric	Method	Website	Game	Beamer	Mean
Wall time $\downarrow$	Claude Code	369	698	92	386.3
	SquidAgent	259	439	83	260.3
Throughput $\uparrow$	Claude Code	19.8	4.0	10.9	11.6
	SquidAgent	28.1	6.2	12.0	15.4
Quality $\uparrow$	Claude Code	100.0	100.0	97.0	99.0
	SquidAgent	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Appendix

Table 11: Preliminary transfer evaluation on three external tasks from Flow. Wall time is in seconds, throughput in words/s, and quality in percent.

Explore similar work

A Two-Tier Perspective on Inference-Time Parallelism in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Aug 6, 2026Zihan Xu, Haolin Tian, Hai JiangMulti-Agent Large Language Model Systems Agentic Inference
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.
When Parallelism Pays Off: Cohesion-Aware Task Partitioning for Multi-Agent Coding
May 31, 2026Xu Yang, Lunyiu Nie, Ethan Chandra +3Multi-Agent Orchestration Coding Agents
1The University of Texas at Austin · University of Oxford
Response-Conditioned Parallel-to-Sequential Orchestration for Multi-Agent Systems
May 15, 2026Nurbek Tastan, Alex Iacob, Lorenzo Sani +4Large Language Model Agents
1MBZUAI, UAE · University of Cambridge, UK · 3Flower Labs, UK +1

Aug 6, 2026, cs.MAJ/K move · Enter open · S save

A Two-Tier Perspective on Inference-Time Parallelism in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Zihan Xu, Haolin Tian, Hai Jiang

Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.

Multi-Agent Large Language Model Systems Agentic Inference Perspective

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Large language model (LLM)-driven multi-agent systems typically require multiple model invocations and complex coordination during inference, and their execution strategies directly affect system accuracy, latency, and computational cost. Parallel execution provides a means to improve inference-time efficiency. From the perspective of inference-time execution, this paper models parallelism in multi-agent systems as two distinct levels of decision processes: Replica Parallelism, which explores multiple complete solution paths at the task level, and Structural Parallelism, which enables concurrent execution within a single solution path through task decomposition. However, the roles of different forms of parallelism and their interrelationships still lack systematic study in terms of unified organization and coordination. We therefore propose TIPEX, a controllable execution framework that unifies these two levels of parallelism and coordinates their roles within the inference process under a unified execution semantics while supporting systematic combinations and analyses of different parallel strategies and parameter configurations. Systematic experiments on the GAIA benchmark demonstrate that inference-time parallelism can significantly improve accuracy and reduce end-to-end latency at the cost of increased token consumption. Further analysis shows that Replica and Structural Parallelism exhibit complementary effects across task complexities, with tasks of intermediate difficulty benefiting most from their coordination, while overly aggressive parallel strategies do not necessarily yield better performance.

Abstract

Explore similar work

A Two-Tier Perspective on Inference-Time Parallelism in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

When Parallelism Pays Off: Cohesion-Aware Task Partitioning for Multi-Agent Coding

Response-Conditioned Parallel-to-Sequential Orchestration for Multi-Agent Systems