aiqbench analysis
This research provides a rigorous decomposition of multi-agent scaling, revealing that accuracy gains from increasing team size are highly dependent on the specific task and orchestration architecture rather than being a universal lever. The study identifies that "Proposer-Critic" architectures excel at converting coverage headroom into performance for arithmetic problems but underperform on other benchmarks, highlighting the need for task-specific architectural choices. Ultimately, the findings suggest that expanding agent teams is not a uniform strategy but requires careful alignment between the workflow's generative nature and the chosen orchestration method.
An Exact Generate - Transform Decomposition of Small-LLM Team Scaling Across Orchestration Architectures
arXiv:2609.36104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Replacing one LLM agent with a collaborating team can raise accuracy, but whether scaling the team helps, and which architecture to scale, is unclear. Sweeping eight agent orchestration architectures across five instruction-tuned 7-9B models, five short-answer benchmarks, and an executable-code benchmark up to 30 calls, we find that the returns to team scaling are sharply task-dependent: from three to thirty calls accuracy rises by up to 17 points on the two arithmetic word-problem benchmarks (GSM8K, GSMHard) but by at most four on ARC, GPQA, and MMLU, for every architecture, a split the usual task-averaged number conceals. Proposer-Critic captures the arithmetic gains, scaling steepest and, in aggregate, surpassing every other architecture at the largest budget (item-clustered intervals exclude zero), though it ranks among the weakest elsewhere, and no architecture wins across tasks. We explain these trajectories with an exact generate-transform decomposition. Partitioning any workflow into proposal coverage and a downstream transform, any accuracy change splits exactly into an extensive coverage dividend and an intensive transformation change. The decomposition diagnoses each task: arithmetic offers coverage headroom that a critic-guided transform converts, whereas the multiple-choice benchmarks either saturate in coverage or fail to convert it, and on open-ended code generative recovery nearly vanishes so accuracy tracks coverage. At equal call budgets token cost still varies 2.1x. Extra calls therefore create candidate opportunity that only some architectures, on some tasks, convert. Team scaling is a task- and architecture-specific bet, not a uniform lever.
Abstract:Replacing one LLM agent with a collaborating team can raise accuracy, but whether scaling the team helps, and which architecture to scale, is unclear. Sweeping eight agent orchestration architectures across five instruction-tuned 7-9B models, five short-answer benchmarks, and an executable-code benchmark up to 30 calls, we find that the returns to team scaling are sharply task-dependent: from three to thirty calls accuracy rises by up to 17 points on the two arithmetic word-problem benchmarks (GSM8K, GSMHard) but by at most four on ARC, GPQA, and MMLU, for every architecture, a split the usual task-averaged number conceals. Proposer-Critic captures the arithmetic gains, scaling steepest and, in aggregate, surpassing every other architecture at the largest budget (item-clustered intervals exclude zero), though it ranks among the weakest elsewhere, and no architecture wins across tasks. We explain these trajectories with an exact generate-transform decomposition. Partitioning any workflow into proposal coverage and a downstream transform, any accuracy change splits exactly into an extensive coverage dividend and an intensive transformation change. The decomposition diagnoses each task: arithmetic offers coverage headroom that a critic-guided transform converts, whereas the multiple-choice benchmarks either saturate in coverage or fail to convert it, and on open-ended code generative recovery nearly vanishes so accuracy tracks coverage. At equal call budgets token cost still varies 2.1x. Extra calls therefore create candidate opportunity that only some architectures, on some tasks, convert. Team scaling is a task- and architecture-specific bet, not a uniform lever.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.36104 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.36104v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36104 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 333 words
Related coverage
PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
Multi-Vector (Late Interaction) Embedding Models with Sentence Transformers
Hugging Face · Aug 18, 2026
Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026
Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 15, 2026