Dynamic Coordination Strategy Selection for Enterprise Multi-Agent Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Enterprise multi-agent systems increasingly expose multiple coordination patterns, but deployments often lack evidence for when to use consensus, debate, synthesis, or a simpler single-agent workflow. This paper evaluates whether coordination strategy should be selected dynamically by problem class rather than fixed globally. We run a frozen matrix of 30 enterprise tasks spanning six industries, five problem classes, four execution conditions, three replications per cell, and four model arms: qwen_local, sonnet, gemma_openrouter, and an auxiliary openai cloud-validation arm. All 1,440 generated outputs are judged by a fixed Sonnet rubric. The main finding is bounded and operationally useful, but it is not the original strict H1. The pre-registered exact-winner/CI criterion is not supported: exact winner identity is unstable across model arms, and several predicted strategies are close to, but not above, the best observed alternative. A weaker near-best routing claim is strongly supported. In every pre-registered model arm and problem class, and again in the auxiliary OpenAI validation arm, the predicted strategy is within 0.10 quality-score points of the best observed condition. Structured compliance verification is the clearest exception to the original mapping: all arms favor single_agent rather than consensus. A pre-registered Kendall's W test finds no reliable difference between Vietnamese-domain and English-domain tasks in how consistently the four coordination conditions are ranked (mean W of 0.20 in both strata; signed-rank p = .85), so H2 is not supported. We conclude that enterprise coordination policy should use dynamic routing as a calibrated default, not as a deterministic winner-selection law.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2026.
Builds on
14 of 18 references.
References · 14
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,761
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,739
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,348
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 995
- 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Developmentcited by 893
- 2024Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challengescited by 752
- 2023AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviorscited by 580
- 2025MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agentscited by 169
- 2024MDAgents: An Adaptive Collaboration of LLMs for Medical Decision-Makingcited by 162
- 2025Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AIcited by 150
- 2023Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMscited by 103
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.