analiza aiqbench
This paired experiment challenges the default assumption in multi-agent frameworks that hierarchical supervision improves output, revealing instead that mandatory revision loops degrade writing clarity and increase token costs without enhancing utility. The study demonstrates that for open-ended tasks like business intelligence reporting, a flat coordination structure outperforms hierarchical models by avoiding the "hedging" behavior induced by authoritative critique.
Loop-Back Authority in LLM Agent Teams: A Paired Experiment on Flat and Hierarchical Coordination
arXiv:2609.14767v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hierarchical orchestration, in which a Manager agent reviews worker output and can send it back for revision, is the default coordination pattern in production multi-agent LLM frameworks. Classical organizational theory predicts that the authority link speeds convergence on decisive output; work on sycophancy and Degeneration-of-Thought predicts that authoritative critique makes LLM output worse. Prior comparisons vary whole frameworks on tasks with checkable answers, leaving the authority link untested on open-ended work. We present a paired experiment that holds five LLM agents, their roles, prompts, tools, models, and data fixed and varies one link: whether the Manager may reject a worker's output and oblige a revision. Across 43 paired products and 86 runs of a business-intelligence reporting task, a five-model judge panel and a deterministic specification check score every report. The flat organization scores higher on Utility (d = 0.42, p = 0.009) and on Writing Clarity (d = 0.34, p = 0.030); the classical prediction fails. The reports are the same length, but hierarchical reports hedge 53% more, each revision loop is associated with a 0.14-point drop in Writing Clarity, and the hierarchical Writer's first draft is indistinguishable from the flat report: the gap opens inside the revision loop. Specification accuracy is at ceiling in both organizations, and the supervisory tier costs 51.5% more tokens for no quality gain. A supervisor pays for itself when it can verify and becomes a liability when it can only opine.
Abstract:Hierarchical orchestration, in which a Manager agent reviews worker output and can send it back for revision, is the default coordination pattern in production multi-agent LLM frameworks. Classical organizational theory predicts that the authority link speeds convergence on decisive output; work on sycophancy and Degeneration-of-Thought predicts that authoritative critique makes LLM output worse. Prior comparisons vary whole frameworks on tasks with checkable answers, leaving the authority link untested on open-ended work. We present a paired experiment that holds five LLM agents, their roles, prompts, tools, models, and data fixed and varies one link: whether the Manager may reject a worker's output and oblige a revision. Across 43 paired products and 86 runs of a business-intelligence reporting task, a five-model judge panel and a deterministic specification check score every report. The flat organization scores higher on Utility (d = 0.42, p = 0.009) and on Writing Clarity (d = 0.34, p = 0.030); the classical prediction fails. The reports are the same length, but hierarchical reports hedge 53% more, each revision loop is associated with a 0.14-point drop in Writing Clarity, and the hierarchical Writer's first draft is indistinguishable from the flat report: the gap opens inside the revision loop. Specification accuracy is at ceiling in both organizations, and the supervisory tier costs 51.5% more tokens for no quality gain. A supervisor pays for itself when it can verify and becomes a liability when it can only opine.
8 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables, plus 21 pages of supplementary material. Code: this https URL
Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); General Economics (econ.GN)
arXiv:2609.14767 [cs.MA]
(or arXiv:2609.14767v1 [cs.MA] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.14767 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 357 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · 27 aug. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 3 oct. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 10 sept. 2026