Goal-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Collaboration for Long-Horizon Tasks
Organizations: Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA · Baidu, Inc., Beijing, China · Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
Abstract
LLM-based agents are increasingly used to complete complex, long-horizon tasks without human intervention. To make progress toward the task goal, agents need to perform different duties, such as planning and verification, when needed. To understand how single agents manage these duties during long-horizon execution, we conduct a preliminary study. Our analysis shows that verification has the strongest association with task success, but often occurs late, leaving limited opportunities for correction. We also find that the proportion of duty-relevant information decreases as records from different duties accumulate in a shared context. These findings lead us to examine whether multi-agent systems (MAS) can address these problems by assigning duties to agents with separate contexts. Our analysis shows that this separation alone is insufficient. Agents can lose track of the overall goal and repeat prior investigations. They may also lack necessary background while receiving irrelevant information from others. To maintain goal awareness and coordinate collaboration as task needs change, we propose Goal-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Collaboration (GAD). It uses a growing execution graph to organize subtasks and their dependencies. To keep agents focused on their goals, each context retains the original instruction and the assigned task's goal and acceptance conditions. To adapt collaboration and information sharing during execution, agents can divide tasks into subtasks and specify dependencies based on execution evidence. These dependencies guide when agents work and which results they receive. Verification and recovery check subtask results and full task completion against their goals, providing feedback for repair when checks fail.
Figures & tables
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | SWE-Bench Pro (Hard-51) | ||||
| Category | Method | Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.7-Plus | Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.7-Plus |
| Single agent | Single (React loop) | 57.3 | 56.2 | 27.5 | 31.4 |
| Single (Terminus-KIRA) | 41.6 | 41.6 | 49.0 | 31.4 | |
| Single (Terminus-2) | 52.8 | 55.0 | 64.7 | 27.5 | |
| Static MAS (fixed topology) | Chain | 58.4 | 51.7 | 39.2 | 25.5 |
| Star | 56.2 | 52.8 | 43.1 | 15.7 | |
| Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.7-Plus | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | TB2.1 | Hard51 | TB2.1 | Hard51 |
| GAD | 71.9 (64) | 66.7 (34) | 64.0 (57) | 33.3 (17) |
| w/o goal awareness | 69.7 (62) | 58.8 (30) | 60.7 (54) | 27.5 (14) |
| w/o dynamic collaboration | 67.4 (60) | 52.9 (27) | 61.8 (55) | 23.5 (12) |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Harness | Trajectories | Steps | Pass rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opus 4.6 | Terminus-KIRA | 43 | 1544 | 62.8 |
| Opus 4.6 | ReAct | 44 | 1262 | 43.2 |
| Opus 4.6 | Terminus-2 | 29 | 418 | 41.4 |
| Sonnet 4.6 | ReAct | 32 | 456 | 62.5 |
| Qwen3.7-Plus | ReAct | 45 | 1162 | 60.0 |
| Duty | Definition |
|---|---|
| plan | deciding what to do next, ordering subgoals, tracking the objective |
| act | issuing the command, or writing the code it contains |
| interpret | reading and making sense of the previous observation |
| verify | checking whether the result meets the acceptance criteria |
| self-correct | diagnosing an earlier mistake and recovering from it |
| off-task | content unrelated to the task, or repeating covered ground |
| Setting | Value |
|---|---|
| Judge model | GPT-5.5 , temperature 1.0 |
| Steps per call | 5 |
| Text per step | reasoning 900, command 600, observation 400 characters |
| Task instruction | 1500 characters |
| Dominant duty | duty with the largest fraction |
| Duty-switch rate | share of adjacent steps with different dominant duties |
| Hyperparameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Concurrent workers | 3 |
| Recent local records (worker / verifier) | 7 / 10 |
| Retrieved artifacts per query | 6 |
| Maximum nodes / depth | 64 / 8 |
| Maximum children per route | 4 |
| Maximum routes per node | 3 |
Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Multi-agent large language model systems coordinate multiple AI agents to solve tasks through communication, specialization, shared tools, and memory.
See all 1,050 papers