Centralized orchestration provides comprehensive multi-agent coordination but creates bottlenecks in scalability, adaptability, and collective performance. Decentralized approaches alleviate these bottlenecks by distributing coordination across agents, yet often leave responsibility for delegated dependencies and failure recovery unclear. To address this gap, we propose RCM, a responsibility-centered coordination mechanism that leverages commitments to couple task delegation with explicit responsibilities of the involved parties. Through recursive delegation, agents retain their upstream responsibilities while locally orchestrating downstream commitments, thereby preserving accountability across delegation chains, creating a network of local orchestration. We operationalize this mechanism locally through responsibility-constrained decision-making and a responsibility-oriented communication protocol (RCP), enabling agents to autonomously establish, manage, and terminate commitments. As agents act in parallel, their local actions continuously evolve the commitment graph, allowing global coordination to emerge and adapt toward a shared mission without centralized control. Experiments across reasoning, coding, and executable agent environments demonstrate that RCM outperforms strong centralized and decentralized coordination baselines by up to 18.7 points in task performance and 10.2 points in Responsibility, while improving failure and harm detection without task-specific training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of RCM . The right side shows global coordination through a dynamic network of commitments and local failure recovery. The left side illustrates each agent’s internal observe–decide–act loop, through which local decisions collectively give rise to this global coordination.
Figure 2: Example commitment handshake between a delegator and a delegatee. Blue arrows show commitment state updates; red dashed arrows show the delegatee’s acceptance, progress reports, and outcome with completion evidence.
RCP operation
Initiator and semantics
delegate.propose
ai→aj : open a delegation; record the g,τ proposal as Requested .
delegate.accept / decline
aj→ai : accept or decline the proposal version; acceptance establishes commitment edge C in Agreed .
commitment.query / communicate
ai↔aj : exchange questions, clarifications, information, or intervention requests within scope; correlate responses by reply_to .
commitment.notify
ai↔aj : report consequential changes; aj also reports start, progress, partial results, and exceptions.
outcome.submit / verify
aj→ai : submit outcome evidence; ai verifies it against β before discharge.
commitment.revise
ai↔aj : counter or revise g,τ ; changes take effect only after agreement on the new version.
Table 1: Core RCP operations between delegator ai and delegatee aj . Messages inform the recipient’s decisions under its active responsibility in ρC ; lifecycle updates are guarded changes to commitment edges.
Workflow
Method
Dynamic workflow
Responsi- bility
Distributed M/R
Qwen3-4B
GPT-5.4
Non-Agentic
Agentic
Non-Agentic
Agentic
AIME25
HumanEval
Claw-Eval
Claw-Live
AIME25
HumanEval
Claw-Eval
Claw-Live
Broadcast
MAS-Broadcast
×
Unspecified
×
30.0 ± 3.3
83.3 ± 2.2
35.7 ± 1.9
40.2 ± 3.7
43.3 ± 8.4
93.9 ± 1.5
50.5 ± 1.4
64.4 ± 2.7
Designed
MachineSoM
×
Debate
×
16.7 ± 5.1
87.9 ± 0.9
41.6 ± 1.4
56.3 ± 1.5
66.7 ± 0.0
90.9 ± 4.0
44.2 ± 1.5
51.5 ± 3.1
Sparse MAD
×
Debate
×
6.7 ± 3.3
81.8 ± 2.3
43.0 ± 0.5
59.5 ± 0.8
60.0 ± 10.2
98.5 ± 0.0
46.9 ± 0.9
60.0 ± 1.1
MetaGPT
×
Role
×
36.7 ± 8.8
86.4 ± 1.5
40.5 ± 1.9
52.4 ± 1.0
63.3 ± 5.1
89.4 ± 3.5
51.4 ± 2.6
57.6 ± 2.4
Table 2: Performance across tasks, environments, and executor models. Dynamic workflow indicates whether task relationships can change during execution. Responsibility is unspecified under broadcast, induced through debate or role assignment, implicit in workflow structure, execution-based, or explicit through commitment. Distributed M/R denotes distributed monitoring and recovery. ✓ , ∘ , and × indicate full, partial, and no support.
Figure 3: Agent scaling on Claw-Eval .
Method
Comm. ↑
Mon. ↑
Intv. ↑
Ful. ↑
Resp. ↑
Broadcast
MAS-Broadcast
82.9 ± 5.0
89.7 ± 4.7
44.8 ± 5.2
38.1 ± 1.7
63.9 ± 2.7
Designed
MachineSoM
94.7 ± 6.0
77.8 ± 4.8
13.9 ± 5.1
30.2 ± 1.5
54.1 ± 1.5
Sparse MAD
93.9 ± 0.4
77.4 ± 1.3
12.9 ± 1.4
33.7 ± 1.1
54.5 ± 0.9
MetaGPT
75.4 ± 10.0
83.7 ± 7.7
51.2 ± 10.1
39.8 ± 2.9
62.5 ± 5.2
Table 3: Responsibility metrics on Claw-Eval with GPT-5.4. Resp. is the equal-weight mean of Comm., Mon., Intv., and Ful.
Model
Pair
Agent
Error
Avg.
Trained baselines (Trained ✓ )
DCL (Aegis)
1.60
8.40
14.67
8.22
Aegis-SFT (Qwen2.5-14B)
4.03
51.14
9.87
21.68
Aegis-GRPO (Qwen2.5-14B)
2.45
54.43
4.15
20.34
Qwen3-8B-Thinking + GRPO
8.10
53.12
11.25
24.16
Training-free baselines (Trained × )
Table 4: Failure attribution on Who&When under the Aegis protocol. Baseline results are from Kong et al. (2026) . Avg. is the mean of Pair, Agent, and Error micro-F1.
Model
Acc.
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Guard models (Trained ✓ )
LlamaGuard3-8B
53.1
85.7
3.8
7.3
LlamaGuard4-12B
58.1
63.8
30.9
41.7
Qwen3-Guard
51.5
40.0
0.4
0.8
ShieldAgent
62.5
58.0
81.4
67.7
AgentDoG-Qwen3-4B
64.0
59.2
88.9
71.1
Table 5: Harmful-trajectory detection on ATBench-C. Baseline results are from Li et al. (2026b) .
Variant
Task ↑
Resp. ↑
Full RCM
72.8 ± 1.3
82.8 ± 0.0
Relevant-1 initial receiver
61.5 ± 1.6
73.9 ± 5.0
Random-1 initial receiver
59.1 ± 1.4
67.5 ± 3.6
Without explicit delegator responsibility
60.4 ± 1.7
68.5 ± 1.6
Without explicit delegatee responsibility
50.4 ± 1.8
65.0 ± 0.5
Without commitment lifecycle
56.6 ± 1.4
47.8 ± 0.4
Table 6: Ablation on Claw-Eval with GPT-5.4. Relevant-1 and Random-1 initially assign the task to the most relevant or a randomly selected agent, respectively, instead of all agents.
Observed behavior
Rate (%)
Emergent task architectures
Linear / sequential support
35.2
Hybrid network
27.5
Specialist hub
24.2
Delegation star
9.9
Hierarchical cascade
3.3
Table 7: Emergent self-organization and local coordination. Complexity bounds are structural, with d events per edge.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Status
Description
REQUESTED
The delegator records the proposed goal and terms and sends the request. No obligation exists yet.
AGREED
The delegatee accepts the proposal. The commitment is now binding, although its activation conditions may not yet hold.
DETACHED
The activation conditions in τ hold, making the obligation to achieve g active.
EXECUTING
Records that the delegatee has started work and reported progress.
DISCHARGED
The delegator has verified that the outcome satisfies the agreed completion criteria.
VIOLATED
The delegator has verified that a due outcome was not achieved or that an agreed constraint was breached.
Appendix
Table 8: Commitment lifecycle states and their operational semantics in RCM .
Figure 4: Commitment lifecycle and state transitions relevant to responsibility in RCM .
Dataset
Setting
Primary metric
AIME25
Mathematical reasoning
Accuracy
HumanEval
Code generation
Pass@1
Claw-Eval
Executable agent tasks
Score, completion, safety, responsibility
Claw-Eval-Live
Dynamic executable tasks
Score
Appendix
Table 9: Evaluation benchmarks, task settings, and primary metrics.
Multi-arm manipulation demands precise spatiotemporal coordination, yet many centralized approaches scale poorly as team size increases. To address this, we propose CLS-DP, a decentralized multi-agent framework that enables implicit coordination under partial observability without shared global views, explicit state information, or inter-agent communication. Under the centralized training and decentralized execution (CTDE) paradigm, CLS-DP distills privileged multi-agent dynamics into a latent space. At deployment, each agent infers a collaborative latent from its local RGB observation and a shared task instruction; it then conditions the diffusion denoising process on this latent. This design enables implicit coordination with a per-agent cost independent of team size. Across six RoboFactory benchmark tasks spanning two to four agents, CLS-DP achieves a 38% mean success rate, outperforming the best centralized baseline (20%) and a decentralized ablation without the collaborative latent (9%). It also maintains superior parameter efficiency across all agent configurations. Attribution maps show that an agent conditioned on the collaborative latent places high attribution on the joints and grippers of both itself and its teammates throughout execution. This suggests that the learned latent efficiently encodes collaborative dynamics from local observation, which facilitates implicit coordination in realistic settings characterized by partial observability.
Chanyoung Park, Minsung Yoon, Andrew Jeong +1
School of Computing at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea
As large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems scale to handle increasingly complex tasks, balancing structural stability and dynamic adaptability becomes increasingly challenging. Existing systems typically adopt either structure-centric methods, committing to structures determined upfront that limit fine-grained control, or orchestration-centric methods, adapting decisions dynamically while leaving coordination structure implicit and unstable. To address this challenge, we revisit multi-agent coordination from a probabilistic perspective, casting it as posterior inference over the joint distribution of structure and orchestration. We introduce MACA, an automated coordination framework that learns a task- and budget-conditioned structural prior over agent participation and interactions. This prior guides a policy-based orchestration as an approximation to posterior inference, enabling efficient solutions with fine-grained control. Across benchmarks, MACA outperforms adaptive multi-agent baselines by an average of 8.42% while using 43.19% fewer tokens. Further investigation reveals that joint adaptation of structure and orchestration suppresses redundant interactions, converging coordination toward task-effective execution.
Haoran Li, Shulun Chen, Shaoyuan Sun +1
Nanjing University · University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia · University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Efficient resource allocation in multi-agent systems requires autonomous agents to coordinate their decisions while balancing system-wide objectives with individual costs. This becomes increasingly challenging over long time horizons, where decisions that improve the current allocation may compromise future resource allocation, while decentralized agents have limited observations of the overall system. Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) can learn such long-term dependencies via local observations, but directly applying it to large-scale coordination leads to rapidly growing decision spaces and inefficient training. To this end, we propose Hierarchical Reinforcement and Collective Learning (HRCL), a hierarchical framework that uses MARL to guide, rather than replace, decentralized multi-agent coordination. At the high level, MARL learns strategies that restrict the alternatives considered during coordination and guide agents in balancing system-wide and individual objectives. At the low level, agents perform efficient decentralized coordination under this strategic guidance. This separation reduces the learning space and allows short-term coordination trade-offs to be evaluated according to their long-term effects. Experiments on a synthetic benchmark show that HRCL converges substantially faster than standalone MARL and reduces system-wide and individual costs by 35.53% and 27.05%, respectively. Evaluations on energy self-management and drone swarm sensing further show improved resource allocation, power-peak regulation, and sensing efficiency. These results show that learning strategic guidance for an existing coordination process can retain scalable decentralized coordination without letting short-term decisions compromise future resource allocation.
Chuhao Qin, Evangelos Pournaras
School of Computer Science, University of Leeds, UK