# Toward an Organizational Science of Multi-Agent LLM Systems: Decoupling Who, How, and Which Algorithm

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25446 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.25446/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 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 14 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

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

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (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)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.02561/) (2023)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [A Dynamic LLM-Powered Agent Network for Task-Oriented Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02170/) (2023)
- [MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01935/) (2025)
- [Large Language Model Routing with Benchmark Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15789/) (2023)
- [AgentsNet: Coordination and Collaborative Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.08616/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Graph Engineering in the Era of LLM Agents: From Individual Intelligence to System Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21156/) (2026)
- [Testing Interchangeability in LLM Agent Teams](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.05279/) (2026)
- [Degrees of Freedom in Multi-Agent Coordination: Between Centralized and Decentralized Regimes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17751/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent frameworks built on large language models (LLMs) routinely entangle three logically distinct concerns: who is on the team (organization), how members align (coordination), and which algorithm fuses their work (collaboration protocol). IMACS (Intelligent Multi-Agent Collaboration System) separates the three into orthogonal, independently swappable layers. Classic organizational theory (Belbin roles, Mintzberg coordination, RACI accountability) becomes executable, validated configuration, and the framework places six published collaboration algorithms behind a common interface while exposing roles, coordination, and accountability as independently configurable factors. We use this separation to conduct controlled comparisons in which organizational assignments vary while the collaboration protocol is held fixed. It also turns protocol choice into a variable that can be learned: Adaptive Org Routing, a contextual-bandit meta-protocol, selects a protocol per task under an explicit quality-cost tradeoff, outperforms every fixed protocol in a controlled study, and trains online on real benchmark and LLM-judge rewards. The ablations expose a mechanism. Accountability placement changes outcomes exactly when the protocol routes the deliverable through the accountable agent, and the winning placement flips across model families, so organizational design cannot be hard-coded; it must be revalidated, or learned, for each model binding.