Orchestrating multiple agents on a complex task requires reconciling local subtask execution with global task planning. Dynamic dispatch approaches provide execution flexibility but do not explicitly model subtask hierarchies or dependencies, while predefined workflows impose this structure but fix the decomposition before execution begins. Therefore, we introduce HTN-Orchestrate, a two-layer framework that separates these responsibilities through a hierarchical task network (HTN). The Planner maintains subtask hierarchies and dependencies, deferring decomposition until prerequisite results become available, while local Orchestrators schedule workers to execute each leaf subtask. Results propagate upward under AND semantics, and accumulated findings inform a rebuilt task network when the current decomposition cannot resolve the task. On five benchmarks spanning web research, scientific reasoning, and research workflows, HTN-Orchestrate outperforms ReAct, Agent Team, and DeepSeek Harness using the same base model, achieving 89.73% accuracy on BrowseComp and 73.44% on SUPERChem, exceeding Agent Team by 2.45 and 4.69 percentage points, respectively.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: HTN-Orchestrate separates result-informed task planning from local multi-agent orchestration. (a) The Planner expands ready tasks using prerequisite results and synthesizes parent results after all children return. When rebuilding is needed, supported evidence is retained to construct a new task network. (b) Each executable leaf is delegated to an Orchestrator, which dispatches workers, collects reports as they become available, and uses those reports to guide subsequent assignments and leaf synthesis. The leaf result returns to the task network for further planning and upward synthesis.
STR
RES
DEC
RPL
EVC
Agent Team ( Apodex Team, 2026 )
✓
Workforce ( Hu et al., 2025a )
✓
✓
✓
ADaPT ( Prasad et al., 2024 )
✓
✓
FlowSearch ( Hu et al., 2025b )
✓
✓
✓
ChatHTN ( Muñoz-Avila et al., 2025 )
✓
HTN-Orchestrate (ours)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Feature comparison with closely related systems. STR = structured plan (explicit task hierarchy or dependency graph); RES = result-informed (subsequent work conditioned on execution findings); DEC = decoupled (global planning and local execution handled by separate controllers); RPL = replanning (task structure revised during execution); EVC = evidence carryover (findings from a prior plan explicitly condition the rebuilt plan).
Method / Model
BC
FSR
FSO
SUPERChem (text-only)
PRL-Bench
Proprietary
GPT-6 Astra ( OpenAI, 2026c )
91.50
–
–
–
–
GPT-5.6 Sol ( OpenAI, 2026d )
90.40
–
–
73.60
–
GPT-5.5 ( OpenAI, 2026b )
84.40
33.90
73.80
66.20
–
GPT-5.4 ( OpenAI, 2026a )
82.70
23.33
–
57.70
37.38
Claude Fable 5 ( Anthropic, 2026a )
87.40
–
–
–
–
Table 2: Main results. BC, FSO, and SUPERChem report accuracy (%), FSR reports success rate (%), and PRL-Bench reports the mean percentage of satisfied rubric criteria. Higher is better for all metrics; bold marks the best score and underline marks the second best on each benchmark.
Figure 2: Per-question completion times on a 200-question subset of BrowseComp, with marker shapes and colors indicating paired correctness. Both axes use logarithmic scales; points below the dashed equality line indicate shorter completion times for HTN.
Figure 3: Worker concurrency on a 200-question subset of BrowseComp. (a) Average worker concurrency Cˉ over each question’s full trace window; the dashed line marks equality. (b) Per-question time shares, averaged equally over all 200 questions or the 165 questions both methods answer correctly. Workers are active from invocation to completion or cancellation, including model and tool waits; control agents are excluded.
Metric
Correct
Incorrect
( n=184 )
( n=16 )
Final tree maximum depth
1.23
1.19
Final tree leaves
3.95
4.00
Executed leaf instances
4.52
6.31
Worker invocations
21.04
47.50
Orchestrator decision rounds
20.21
44.62
Table 3: HTN-Orchestrate’s internal statistics on a 200-question subset of BrowseComp, grouped by outcome. Tree metrics describe the final task network; execution counts include work before and after rebuilding. Values are means except for the percentage of questions with a rebuild.
Variant
Accuracy (%)
Δ
HTN-Orchestrate
92.0
—
Upfront decomposition
90.5
−1.5
Single-agent leaf execution
89.5
−2.5
No rebuilding
89.5
−2.5
Table 4: Ablation results on a 200-question subset of BrowseComp. Δ is the accuracy difference from HTN-Orchestrate in percentage points.
Figure 4: Execution statistics on a 200-question subset of BrowseComp for HTN-Orchestrate (HTN) and its ablated variants. Panels (a–c) show per-question counts across all epochs. Boxes span the interquartile range, horizontal lines mark medians, and whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range; outlier markers are hidden. Panel (d) shows the percentage of questions with a task-network rebuild. Single-agent leaf execution is omitted from (c), and No rebuilding from (d), because their values are uniformly zero.
Figure 5: Result-informed planning on BrowseComp Q193. The question traces an author of a 1993 role-playing-game supplement through a 2015 children’s book and his father’s radio program to a station’s first broadcast year. Solid lines show task hierarchy; dashed arrows show dependencies or returned evidence. Green boxes contain research findings. In (a), the blue subtree is expanded after the author list is returned. In (b), the orange tasks independently discover and reconcile author candidates within a tree fully planned before research begins. Both runs correctly identify WVIK and answer 1980.
Figure 6: Task-network rebuilding on BrowseComp Q501. The question asks for the third song in a 24-song blog list dated December 27, using a weekly-feature clue and the 21st song’s album as additional constraints. The orange node marks the initial incomplete post search; the blue node marks the added weekly-feature task. Green boxes show retained findings and subsequent results. Solid lines show hierarchy, and dashed arrows show selected dependencies and evidence transfers. Gray dashed nodes were planned but not executed; the final answer is supported by the completed post-search branch in epoch 1.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Questions
Task format
Retrieval
BrowseComp
1,266
Multi-hop web research; short factual answers
Enabled
BC ablation subset
200
Same task format; fixed question IDs across variants
Enabled
FrontierScience-Research
60
Research-level scientific problems; written solutions
Disabled
FrontierScience-Olympiad
100
Olympiad-level problems; worked solutions and final answers
Disabled
SUPERChem
256
Text-only chemistry questions; option selection
Disabled
PRL-Bench
100
Research-level physics problems; written solutions
Disabled
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation sets and solver tools. Python execution is available in all five settings. Offline evaluation disables search, page retrieval, and external network access while retaining Python computation.
Setting
Value
Temperature / top- p
1.0 / 0.95
Maximum output tokens per model call
65,536
Maximum tree depth
2
Maximum children per decomposition
4
Maximum Orchestrator decisions per leaf per epoch
12
Worker capacity per leaf
3
Appendix
Table 6: HTN-Orchestrate execution settings. Tree depth counts the root as depth zero. Worker capacity applies within a leaf; independent ready leaves may execute concurrently.
Field
Meaning
id , parent_id , children
Node identity and hierarchical edges
title , task
Short label and self-contained objective
depends_on
Sibling nodes whose completion is required before this node becomes ready
needs_decomposition
Whether a ready node returns to the Planner
status
pending , running , completed , or failed
result_summary , ref
Evidence summary and reference to the full leaf result
Appendix
Table 7: Task-node representation.
Role
Input
Output
Planner
Root question, current task, completed precursor summaries, restart context
Direct execution or validated child tasks and dependencies
Orchestrator
Leaf objective, prerequisite evidence, returned reports, active assignments, budget
Dispatch, wait, or terminate
Instruction generator
Leaf objective, selected role, evidence and remaining issue
An executable worker assignment
Researcher
Assigned objective, original constraints, prior evidence
Proposed answer, original objective, supporting reports
Completeness and correctness checks, verdict
Synthesizer
Node objective and worker or child reports
Evidence summary and completion outcome
Appendix
Table 8: Role inputs and outputs.
Variant
Changed behavior
Retained components
Upfront decomposition
Complete the task network before executing any leaf in each epoch. Decomposition instructions refer to anticipated outputs rather than completed precursor results.
Dependency-constrained execution, local multi-agent orchestration, synthesis, rebuilding
Single-agent leaf execution
Launch exactly one ReAct researcher for each executable leaf. Its report goes directly to leaf synthesis, replacing Orchestrator decisions and multi-worker dispatch.
Result-informed planning, prerequisite context, leaf and tree synthesis, rebuilding
No rebuilding
Set the maximum number of rebuilds to zero.
Result-informed planning, local multi-agent orchestration, synthesis, finalization from accumulated evidence
Appendix
Table 9: Components changed by each ablated variant.
Method
Correct
Acc. (%)
Mean time
Med. time
Exec. leaves
Workers
Decisions
Rebuilt
HTN-Orchestrate
184
92.0
58.03
25.23
4.665
23.155
22.165
35
Upfront decomposition
181
90.5
67.69
30.02
5.025
24.760
24.025
45
Single-agent leaf execution
179
89.5
28.49
17.69
6.145
6.145
0
64
No rebuilding
179
89.5
46.54
28.15
4.120
19.010
18.500
0
Appendix
Table 10: BrowseComp-200 ablation results. Execution counts and duration include all epochs of each selected attempt. Time is measured in minutes; leaves, workers, and decisions are means per question.
Ablated variant
Both correct
HTN correct only
Ablated variant correct only
Both incorrect
Net HTN gain
Upfront decomposition
176
8
5
11
+3
Single-agent leaf execution
172
12
7
9
+5
No rebuilding
175
9
4
12
+5
Appendix
Table 11: Paired correctness on BrowseComp-200. “HTN correct only” means the full system is correct and the ablated variant is incorrect; “Ablated variant correct only” denotes the reverse.
Figure 7: Exclusive correct outcomes in the ablation comparison. Blue bars count questions answered correctly only by HTN-Orchestrate; orange bars count questions answered correctly only by the ablated variant. The difference gives the net gain in Table 11 .
Figure 8: Local multi-agent orchestration on BrowseComp Q1025. The expanded leaf shows complementary discovery assignments followed by verification of a returned candidate. The full system identifies Linus Lerner; the single-agent-per-leaf variant submits Gregory Wait.
Question
Method
Leaves
Workers
Decisions
Rebuilds
Answer
Q193
HTN-Orchestrate
4
15
18
0
1980
Q193
Upfront decomposition
5
20
21
0
1980
Q1025
HTN-Orchestrate
3
10
10
0
Linus Lerner
Q1025
Single-agent leaf execution
9
9
0
1
Gregory Wait
Q501
HTN-Orchestrate
5
72
56
1
Serial Killer
Q501
No rebuilding
2
18
18
0
Silent Night
Appendix
Table 12: Execution counts for the three BrowseComp case pairs. Counts cover the entire selected question attempt.
Learned orchestration can automatically construct effective language-model multi-agent systems, but existing approaches couple planning to fixed worker pools and train decomposition and collaboration from the same terminal outcome, limiting transfer and obscuring credit assignment. We introduce DeOrch, which separates worker-agnostic planning from concrete worker selection. Its two-stage planner first decomposes the task without worker information, then chooses collaboration operations using compact, worker-identity-free matchability feedback from the pool, enabling conditional credit assignment to decomposition and collaboration decisions. A lightweight matcher estimates worker suitability from behavior on a fixed probe set and adapts online with a contextual bandit, allowing new workers to be incorporated without retraining the planner or matcher. Across diverse in- and out-of-distribution tasks, DeOrch outperforms prior automatic MAS orchestration methods with fewer worker calls than competing learned orchestrators, remains effective when transferred to an entirely unseen worker pool without retraining, and shows consistent gains from both components.
Large language model (LLM) multi-agent systems typically rely on rigid orchestration, committing either to flat per-query routing or to hand-engineered task decomposition, so decomposition depth, worker choice, and inference budget are not jointly optimized under one objective. We introduce Uno-Orchestra, a unified orchestration policy that selectively decomposes a task and dispatches each subtask to an admissible (model, primitive) pair, with both decisions learned together from curated RL trajectories grounded in real worker interactions. Against 22 baselines on a 13-benchmark suite spanning math, code, knowledge, long-context, and agentic tool-use, Uno-Orchestra reaches 77.0% macro pass@1, roughly 16% above the strongest workflow baseline, at roughly an order of magnitude lower per-query cost, advancing the accuracy-efficiency frontier of selective delegation.
As large language models from diverse providers converge toward comparable benchmark performance, the traditional paradigm of selecting a single best model per task yields diminishing returns. We argue that orchestration topology -- the structural composition of how multiple agents are coordinated, parallelized, and synthesized -- now dominates system-level performance over individual model capability. We present AdaptOrch, a formal framework for task-adaptive multi-agent orchestration that dynamically selects among four canonical topologies (parallel, sequential, hierarchical, and hybrid) based on task dependency graphs and empirically derived domain characteristics. Our framework introduces three key contributions: (1) a Performance Convergence Scaling Law, formalizing conditions under which orchestration selection outweighs model selection; (2) a Topology Routing Algorithm that maps task decomposition DAGs to optimal orchestration patterns in O(|V| + |E|) time; and (3) an Adaptive Synthesis Protocol with provable termination guarantees and heuristic consistency scoring for parallel agent outputs. We validate AdaptOrch across coding (SWE-bench), reasoning (GPQA), and retrieval-augmented generation tasks, demonstrating that topology-aware orchestration achieves 12-23% improvement over static single-topology baselines, even when using identical underlying models. Our results establish orchestration design as a first-class optimization target independent of model scaling.
Geunbin Yu
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Korea National Open University