mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Phase Transition for Budgeted Multi-Agent Synergy

arXiv 2601.17311 ↗First posted 24 Jan 2026cs.AIcited by 4

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent systems can improve reliability, yet under a fixed inference budget they often help, saturate, or even collapse. We develop a minimal and calibratable theory that predicts these regimes from three binding constraints of modern agent stacks: finite context windows, lossy inter-agent communication, and shared failures among similar agents. Each leaf agent is summarized by a compute-performance scaling exponent β; communication is captured by a message-length fidelity curve γ(m); dependence is captured by an effective shared-error correlation ρ; and a context window W imposes hard fan-in limits that make hierarchy necessary. For binary success/failure tasks with majority aggregation, we prove a sharp phase transition for deep b-ary trees with correlated inputs and lossy communication: a single scalar αρ (combining γ(m), ρ, and fan-in b) determines whether weak signal is amplified to a nontrivial fixed point or washed out to chance. In the amplifying regime, we derive an organization exponent s and show that budgeted synergy, i.e., outperforming the best single agent under the same total budget, occurs exactly when s>β, yielding closed-form compute allocation rules and explicit budget thresholds. We further characterize saturation via a mixing depth and provide a conservative clipped predictor that remains accurate across growth and saturation. A continuous-performance warm-up gives closed-form risks for star, chain, and tree organizations, making correlation- and communication-induced floors explicit and exposing the core design trade-offs in a smooth setting. Finally, we validate the predicted phase boundaries in controlled synthetic simulations and show how the same mechanisms explain the dominant bottlenecks reported in recent large-scale matched-budget studies of LLM agent-system scaling.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2026.

Builds on

9 of 29 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026When Single-Agent with Skills Replace Multi-Agent Systems and When They Fail8 Jan
  2. 2025Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems9 Dec
  3. 2024G-Designer: Architecting Multi-agent Communication Topologies via Graph Neural Networks15 Oct

Other references · 6

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  2. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
  3. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
  4. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 400
  5. 2018Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak expertscited by 145
  6. 2025An Information Theoretic Perspective on Agentic System Designcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Width, Memory, and Delay: A Resource Accounting for the Limits of Flat Multi-Agent Systems
  2. 2025Emergent Coordination in Multi-Agent Language Models
  3. 2026Bayes-Sufficient Compression Is Not Enough: How Does Communication Help Multi-Agent Systems?
  4. 2025Understanding the Information Propagation Effects of Communication Topologies in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems
  5. 2026Scaling Behavior of Single LLM-Driven Multi-Agent Systems
  6. 2026Scaling Discovery through Test-Time Communication
  7. 2026When Do Multi-Agent Systems Help? An Information Bottleneck Perspective
  8. 2026The Ringelmann Effect in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: A Scaling Law for Effective Team Size