# Dynamic Coordination Strategy Selection for Enterprise Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00804 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.00804/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10848/) (2023)
- [MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01935/) (2025)
- [MDAgents: An Adaptive Collaboration of LLMs for Medical Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15155/) (2024)
- [Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14143/) (2025)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01766/) (2024)
- [Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08788/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39989/) (2026)

## 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.