Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study provides a rigorous empirical comparison of multi-agent workflows against single-agent baselines using GPT-4.1, quantifying the trade-offs between accuracy gains and significant increases in token consumption across reasoning and coding tasks. The findings offer critical data for developers deciding whether complex agent architectures are justified by marginal performance improvements or if resource allocation strategies need optimization to maintain efficiency.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Do More Agents Help? Evaluating Accuracy and Cost in LLM Multi-Agent Workflows

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2606.05670v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Choosing whether to replace a single-agent controller requires evidence on both task performance and inference expenditure. We present BenchAgent, a shared evaluation framework, and compare six multi-agent workflow configurations against its single-agent reference, BenchAgent Core, across ten reasoning, coding, and tool-use benchmarks. All configurations use GPT-4.1 and common tool and scoring interfaces; Core executions share the same step limits. We measure accuracy and recorded token use over three runs on fixed task sets, with 3,302 instances per configuration per run. EvoAgent reaches 79.70% mean pooled accuracy versus 76.65% for Core and exceeds Core in all three runs; the other five MAS trail by 1.71-8.76 percentage points. LLM-Debate gains 9.67 points on HumanEval but loses 1.96 points in pooled accuracy while consuming 1.39 times the tokens of Core. ChatEval gains 22.25 points on IFEval but trails Core in pooled accuracy with 4.34 times its token consumption. The broad comparison and targeted analyses of retained responses provide evidence for workflow selection and identify answer preservation and resource allocation as directions for subsequent multi-agent optimization.

Title:Do More Agents Help? Evaluating Accuracy and Cost in LLM Multi-Agent Workflows

Abstract:Choosing whether to replace a single-agent controller requires evidence on both task performance and inference expenditure. We present BenchAgent, a shared evaluation framework, and compare six multi-agent workflow configurations against its single-agent reference, BenchAgent Core, across ten reasoning, coding, and tool-use benchmarks. All configurations use GPT-4.1 and common tool and scoring interfaces; Core executions share the same step limits. We measure accuracy and recorded token use over three runs on fixed task sets, with 3,302 instances per configuration per run. EvoAgent reaches 79.70% mean pooled accuracy versus 76.65% for Core and exceeds Core in all three runs; the other five MAS trail by 1.71-8.76 percentage points. LLM-Debate gains 9.67 points on HumanEval but loses 1.96 points in pooled accuracy while consuming 1.39 times the tokens of Core. ChatEval gains 22.25 points on IFEval but trails Core in pooled accuracy with 4.34 times its token consumption. The broad comparison and targeted analyses of retained responses provide evidence for workflow selection and identify answer preservation and resource allocation as directions for subsequent multi-agent optimization.

27 pages, including supplementary material. Revised evaluation and results; updated author list. Code: this https URL

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2606.05670 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.05670v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.05670 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

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 · 292 words

Related coverage