analiza aiqbench
This research demonstrates that while LLMs can effectively identify when a problem will fail, they currently struggle to determine which specific multi-agent collaboration protocol yields the best cost-performance trade-off. The study highlights a critical gap in deploying efficient agent systems where general failure prediction does not translate into optimal routing decisions for specialized protocols like planner-executor-reviewer or broadcast deliberation. Consequently, developing fine-grained, task-aware routers remains an unresolved challenge for scaling complex AI reasoning workflows without excessive computational waste.
LLMs Can Predict Failure Risk, But Struggle to Predict Which Collaboration Protocol Pays Off: Cost-Aware Protocol Routing Across Reasoning Tasks
arXiv:2608.14927v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation, but deployment requires deciding when extra collaboration is worth its cost. We isolate this decision by running every problem under four protocols while holding the solver fixed within each setting: direct solving (Baseline), iterative self-correction (Single), planner-executor-reviewer collaboration (PER), and multi-agent deliberation (Broadcast). The primary benchmark comprises 4,181 competition-level math problems; paired robustness checks cover four benchmarks spanning competition math, biology, and broader science with two solver families. Across fixed policies, trained routers, and frozen LLM routers, conservative policies under-escalate, whereas higher-solve frozen routers often over-escalate. A post-answer, pre-collaboration gpt-oss-120b probe ranks Baseline failures with 0.8847 AUROC (4,151 parseable cases; 95% CI [0.8732, 0.8955]). The same score remains informative for predicting whether any collaboration helps (0.7683 AUPRC), but is much weaker for identifying PER- or Broadcast-specific value (0.1674 and 0.1041 AUPRC). Separately, the pre-answer self-confidence gate reaches 78.0% solve at 45K tokens, compared with 73.8% at 71.3K for a frozen gpt-oss-120b router and 92.4% for a retrospective fixed-order oracle. Across 10 paired model-condition settings, the oracle adds 23.2-58.3 points of retrospective coverage over Baseline, but protocol profiles vary by task. In the six settings with held-out router evaluations, oracle gaps remain 18.5-28.9 points. Confidence can therefore support initial escalation, while protocol-specific cost-aware routing remains unresolved.
Abstract:Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation, but deployment requires deciding when extra collaboration is worth its cost. We isolate this decision by running every problem under four protocols while holding the solver fixed within each setting: direct solving (Baseline), iterative self-correction (Single), planner-executor-reviewer collaboration (PER), and multi-agent deliberation (Broadcast). The primary benchmark comprises 4,181 competition-level math problems; paired robustness checks cover four benchmarks spanning competition math, biology, and broader science with two solver families. Across fixed policies, trained routers, and frozen LLM routers, conservative policies under-escalate, whereas higher-solve frozen routers often over-escalate. A post-answer, pre-collaboration gpt-oss-120b probe ranks Baseline failures with 0.8847 AUROC (4,151 parseable cases; 95% CI [0.8732, 0.8955]). The same score remains informative for predicting whether any collaboration helps (0.7683 AUPRC), but is much weaker for identifying PER- or Broadcast-specific value (0.1674 and 0.1041 AUPRC). Separately, the pre-answer self-confidence gate reaches 78.0% solve at 45K tokens, compared with 73.8% at 71.3K for a frozen gpt-oss-120b router and 92.4% for a retrospective fixed-order oracle. Across 10 paired model-condition settings, the oracle adds 23.2-58.3 points of retrospective coverage over Baseline, but protocol profiles vary by task. In the six settings with held-out router evaluations, oracle gaps remain 18.5-28.9 points. Confidence can therefore support initial escalation, while protocol-specific cost-aware routing remains unresolved.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.14927 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.14927v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14927 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
failure_and_protocol_value_targets.csv
heldout_router_evaluation.csv
heldout_router_paired_differences.csv
main_routing_heldout.csv
matched_protocol_coverage.csv
oracle_label_distribution.csv
per_broadcast_interaction.csv
postanswer_confidence.csv
(4 additional files not shown) You must enabled JavaScript to view entire file list.
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 341 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Beyond Shapley: An Influence-Based Data Auditing Pipeline for LLM Alignment and Evaluation
arXiv · 28 iul. 2026

Modernizing and scaling support operations with generative AI on AWS
AWS · 2 sept. 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026