Opening — Why this matters now Multi-agent LLM systems are having their moment. From coding copilots to autonomous research teams, the industry has embraced the idea that many models thinking together outperform a single, monolithic brain. Yet most agent frameworks still suffer from a familiar corporate disease: everyone talks to everyone, all the time. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Agentic systems are quietly hitting a ceiling. As tasks stretch across longer horizons—debugging real codebases, navigating terminals, or stitching together multi-hop web reasoning—the dominant design patterns start to fray. Fixed workflows ossify. Multi-agent chats drown in coordination overhead. Context windows bloat, then rot. AORCHESTRA enters this moment with a subtle but decisive shift: stop treating sub-agents as identities, and start treating them as configurations. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Multi-agent LLM systems are no longer a novelty. They debate, plan, critique, simulate markets, and increasingly make decisions that look uncomfortably close to judgment. Yet as these systems scale, something quietly fragile sits underneath them: who talks to whom, and when. Most multi-agent frameworks still assume that communication is cheap, static, and benign. In practice, it is none of those. Agents drift, hallucinate, fatigue, or—worse—become adversarial while sounding perfectly reasonable. When that happens, fixed communication graphs turn from coordination tools into liability multipliers. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Multi‑agent systems are having a moment. Everywhere you look—AutoGen‑style workflows, agentic data pipelines, research copilots—LLMs are being wired together and told to collaborate. Yet most of these systems share an uncomfortable secret: they don’t actually learn together. They coordinate at inference time, but their weights remain frozen, their mistakes repeatedly rediscovered. ...
Opening — Why this matters now As large language models quietly slide from novelty to infrastructure, a less glamorous question has become existential: who pays the inference bill? Agentic systems amplify the problem. A single task is no longer a prompt—it is a chain of reasoning steps, retries, tool calls, and evaluations. Multiply that by production scale, and cost becomes the bottleneck long before intelligence does. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Multi-agent LLM systems are everywhere: debate frameworks, critic–writer loops, role-based agents, orchestration layers stacked like an over-engineered sandwich. Empirically, they work. They reason better, hallucinate less, and converge on cleaner answers. Yet explanations usually stop at hand-waving: diversity, multiple perspectives, ensemble effects. Satisfying, perhaps—but incomplete. This paper asks a sharper question: why do multi-agent systems reach solutions that a single agent—given identical information and capacity—often cannot? And it answers it with something rare in LLM discourse: a clean operator-theoretic explanation. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Multi-agent LLM systems are having a moment. From collaborative coding bots to diagnostic committees and AI tutors, orchestration is increasingly the default answer to hard reasoning problems. But there’s an inconvenient truth hiding behind the demos: training multi-agent systems with reinforcement learning is expensive, unstable, and often counterproductive. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Multi-agent systems built on large language models are having a moment. From research copilots to autonomous report generators, the promise is seductive: split a complex task into pieces, let specialized agents work in parallel, and coordinate everything with a central planner. In practice, however, these systems tend to collapse under their own cognitive weight. ...
Opening — Why this matters now Multi-agent debate was supposed to be the antidote to brittle single-model reasoning. Add more agents, let them argue, and truth would somehow emerge from friction. In practice, what often emerges is something closer to a polite echo chamber. Despite the growing popularity of Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) frameworks, many systems quietly degenerate into majority voting over nearly identical reasoning paths. When all agents make the same mistake—just phrased slightly differently—debate becomes theater. The paper DynaDebate: Breaking Homogeneity in Multi-Agent Debate with Dynamic Path Generation tackles this problem head-on, and, refreshingly, does so by treating reasoning as an engineered process rather than a conversational one. fileciteturn0file0 ...
Opening — Why this matters now Multi-agent systems (MAS) built on large language models have developed a bad habit: they work brilliantly—right up until the moment one agent goes off-script. A single failure, miscommunication, or noisy response can quietly poison the entire collaboration. In production environments, this isn’t a hypothetical risk; it’s the default operating condition. ...