In a hierarchical multi-agent system, a Leader assigns tasks and subagents carry them out. Jointly training the Leader and the subagents is difficult because a final answer gives only indirect feedback to the subagents. An LLM judge can score the performance of the subagents, but these scores depend on the judge's own assessment of the quality of subagents' responses. We present MultiAgent-OPD, which combines on-policy distillation with reinforcement learning to jointly train a shared-parameter Leader-Searcher-Answerer team end to end. We first train a Teacher in a Searcher-Answerer workflow using answer correctness. During team training, the frozen Teacher scores student-generated search and summary tokens to provide local process supervision for the Searchers, while the Leader learns from team success and the Answerer from candidate correctness. Across seven datasets, the trained system reaches 38.68% macro avg@4, exceeding Prompted Critic by 4.06 percentage points and C-MAS + RL, the trained cascaded multiagent system, by 2.61 percentage points. The team also solves more questions within four attempts.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: MultiAgent-OPD: multi-wave collaboration with two training signals. The same Leader assigns successive waves of Searchers , collects their reports, and selects evidence for the Answerer . Each Searcher retrieves evidence for its assigned subtask and summarizes the retrieved passages into a report. Gray arrows show this workflow. Orange OPD feedback from the frozen Teacher trains the Searchers , and green final-answer reward feedback trains the Leader and the Answerer . All student roles share one model. Two waves are shown for illustration.
Figure 2: Role-selective process supervision in MultiAgent-OPD. (a) Multiple Agent Teams sample trajectories for the same question. Team outcomes yield GRPO advantages for the Leader , and candidate rewards yield GRPO advantages for the Answerer within each workflow. (b) The Leader spawns parallel Searchers over successive waves, collects their summaries, and delegates the final answer to the Answerer . The Searchers follow ReAct trajectories to search and summarize results. The Searchers receive per-token OPD guidance weights from the frozen Teacher through teacher–old-student log-probability differences under the same local history. Retrieved observations and summaries received by the Leader are masked from the corresponding role’s loss.
Method
Single-hop
Multi-hop
Macro
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
Cascaded and hierarchical systems
C-MAS base
30.0
50.9
25.6
23.6
12.9
6.3
26.4
25.09
C-MAS + RL
43.7
60.2
33.9
33.3
30.5
11.5
39.4
36.07
H-MAS base
30.7
49.8
23.2
27.1
22.6
9.7
37.2
28.60
Prompted Critic
37.4
56.9
28.5
33.1
33.9
11.5
41.0
34.62
Table 1: Main results: avg@4 and pass@4 (%). Macro weights the seven datasets equally. Missing and malformed answers score zero. C-MAS denotes the cascaded Searcher – Answerer system , and H-MAS denotes the hierarchical Leader – Searcher – Answerer system. Prompted Critic and MultiAgent-OPD both use H-MAS. The two base systems use the same general-purpose instruction model without task-specific training. The RL-based search agents use the same backbone and protocol. Bold marks the highest value for each metric and dataset.
Comparator
Δ avg@4 (pp)
95% CI
Prompted Critic
+4.06
[+2.98, +5.12]
C-MAS + RL
+2.61
[+1.49, +3.73]
Table 2: MultiAgent-OPD score minus each compared system (percentage points). In each bootstrap sample, we resample questions within datasets and keep all four attempts for each question together.
Method
Single-hop
Multi-hop
Macro
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
MultiAgent-OPD (full)
42.3
62.5
33.6
37.5
34.0
14.0
46.8
38.68
w/ outcome-based Searcher RL
12.5
30.8
14.7
16.8
27.6
3.9
18.2
17.78
w/ base-model teacher
27.8
49.7
26.4
29.5
25.2
11.2
36.6
29.50
w/o direct Searcher supervision
31.3
51.7
27.1
28.2
21.2
10.1
39.2
29.82
Table 3: Diagnostic comparisons of Searcher supervision and Teacher training: avg@4 and pass@4 (%). Relative to the full method, w/ outcome-based Searcher RL replaces Searcher OPD with RL using final-answer rewards. w/ base-model teacher uses the base model instead of the search-trained Teacher for OPD. w/o direct Searcher supervision removes the direct training losses of the Searchers . All variants keep the training of the Leader and the Answerer . Macro weights the seven datasets equally.
Figure 3: Training-time validation avg@1. Each curve shows one smoothed historical validation run, digitized from the recorded curves. The horizontal axis counts training steps, not compute. These trajectories describe the displayed runs and do not measure variation across training seeds.
Method
avg@4
pass@4
4/4 correct
C-MAS base
25.09
34.02
17.12
C-MAS + RL
36.07
45.97
27.05
H-MAS base
28.60
39.32
18.73
Prompted Critic
34.62
45.96
23.24
MultiAgent-OPD
38.68
48.73
29.27
Table 4: Success across four attempts (macro %). Pass@4 counts questions answered correctly at least once. The 4/4 score counts questions answered correctly every time. These scores do not include a method for selecting an answer.
Figure 4: Correctness and recorded inference workload. Recorded token totals include repeated histories and do not measure latency, unique context, service cost, or training compute. Error bars show pointwise question-bootstrap intervals.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
avg@4 CI
pass@4 CI
C-MAS base
[23.85, 26.37]
[32.41, 35.64]
C-MAS + RL
[34.54, 37.56]
[44.25, 47.65]
H-MAS base
[27.19, 29.95]
[37.63, 40.96]
Prompted Critic
[33.19, 35.99]
[44.25, 47.59]
MultiAgent-OPD
[37.15, 40.18]
[47.05, 50.39]
Appendix
Table 5: Macro scores with 95% question-bootstrap intervals (%) for the fixed models used in evaluation.
Method
No candidate
Empty candidate
Untagged
Failure (macro %)
Rescued
Relaxed EM (%)
C-MAS base
493
0
173
3.41
3
25.105
C-MAS + RL
22
0
0
0.10
0
36.069
H-MAS base
2,451
104
109
12.79
5
28.624
Prompted Critic
658
9
0
3.73
0
34.617
MultiAgent-OPD
62
66
0
0.68
0
38.677
Appendix
Table 6: Answer completion and flexible extraction. Candidate, untagged, and rescued are total counts out of 20,000 records per method. Failure rate and relaxed EM give each dataset equal weight. Rescued counts extra correct answers found by the flexible rules. All failures remain in the evaluation.
Comparator
Remaining gap (pp)
95% CI
Prompted Critic
+0.33
[-0.80, +1.46]
C-MAS + RL
+2.51
[+1.39, +3.65]
Appendix
Table 7: Upper bound from repairing format failures (pp). We assume every format failure in the compared system becomes correct and leave MultiAgent-OPD unchanged. These are assumed bounds, not results from actual repairs.
Step
EM (%)
No search (%)
Final answer (%)
100
27.0
1.2
64.8
200
30.9
0.4
78.8
300
26.0
0.5
49.9
400
21.8
100.0
99.3
500
19.2
100.0
99.5
Appendix
Table 8: Training progression of the outcome-based Searcher RL variant on 1,000 fixed development questions. EM, workflows with no recorded search, and workflows producing a final answer are percentages. Development EM uses one attempt per question and a pooled question average; it is distinct from test-set macro avg@4.
Multi-agent systems (MAS) split a task across specialized roles and are promising on complex tasks, yet a prevailing approach relies on inference-time orchestration alone. General-purpose APIs are costly and hard to customize, while small models with role prompts rarely develop stable role competence or reliable collaboration, so post-training a MAS jointly is central. Most attempts use reinforcement learning, whose team-level reward leaves undetermined which step of which agent brought about the outcome, while local rewards need redesigning per task. On-policy distillation (OPD) gives token-level teacher supervision on trajectories the student samples, a denser signal needing no local reward, yet is underexplored for the interdependent agents of a MAS. Two difficulties arise: building complementary specialization from a judgement of which role a behavior belongs to while preserving the knowledge all roles need, and turning cross-agent collaborative information into supervision OPD can exploit. We present MAS-OPD, where Role-Advantage Specialization defines the role advantage as the difference between the teacher signals under target and non-target role conditions, and Privileged Attribution for Coordination attributes an interaction conflict to its source and supplies it to the teacher alone as privileged information. Extensive experiments on code and mathematics benchmarks show that MAS-OPD attains the highest mean score at both student scales and leads the agents to develop clearer role specialization and more effective collaborative behavior.
Qiyong Zhong, Mao Zheng, Mingyang Song +5
University of Science and Technology of China · Foundation Model Department, Tencent · Zhejiang University +1
Multi-agent LLM systems enable advanced reasoning and tool use via role specialization, yet reliable reinforcement learning (RL) post-training for such systems remains difficult. In this work, we theoretically pinpoint a key reason for training instability when extending group-based RL to multi-agent LLM systems. We show that under GRPO-style optimization, a global normalization baseline may deviate from diverse agents' reward distributions, which ultimately leads to gradient-norm instability. Based on this finding, we propose Dr. MAS, a simple and stable RL training recipe for multi-agent LLM systems. Dr. MAS uses an agent-wise remedy: normalizing advantages per agent using each agent's own reward statistics, which calibrates gradient scales and dramatically stabilizes training, both theoretically and empirically. Beyond the algorithm, Dr. MAS provides an end-to-end RL training framework for multi-agent LLM systems, supporting scalable orchestration, flexible per-agent LLM serving and optimization configs, and shared resource scheduling of LLM actor backends. We evaluate Dr. MAS on multi-agent math reasoning and multi-turn search benchmarks using Qwen2.5 and Qwen3 series models. Dr. MAS achieves clear gains over vanilla GRPO (e.g., +5.6% avg@16 and +4.6% pass@16 on math, and +15.2% avg@16 and +13.1% pass@16 on search) while largely eliminating gradient spikes. Moreover, it remains highly effective under heterogeneous agent-model assignments while improving efficiency.
Large language model (LLM)-based Multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise in tackling complex collaborative tasks, where agents are typically orchestrated via role-specific prompts. While the quality of these prompts is pivotal, jointly optimizing them across interacting agents remains a non-trivial challenge, primarily due to the misalignment between local agent objectives and holistic system goals. To address this, we introduce MASPO, a novel framework designed to automatically and iteratively refine prompts across the entire system. A core innovation of MASPO is its joint evaluation mechanism, which assesses prompts not merely by their local validity, but by their capacity to facilitate downstream success for successor agents. This effectively bridges the gap between local interactions and global outcomes without relying on ground-truth labels. Furthermore, MASPO employs a data-driven evolutionary beam search to efficiently navigate the high-dimensional prompt space. Extensive empirical evaluations across 6 diverse tasks demonstrate that MASPO consistently outperforms state-of-the-art prompt optimization methods, achieving an average accuracy improvement of 2.9. We release our code at https://github.com/wangzx1219/MASPO.
Zhexuan Wang, Xuebo Liu, Li Wang +4
Institute of Computing and Intelligence, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China.