Chanwoo Park, Jaywoong Jeong, Zachary Wojtowicz, Yubin Kim, Taekyun Lee, Kaiqing Zhang, Asuman Ozdaglar
Many real-world decisions require teams to integrate information distributed across participants. Yet AI agents are still primarily trained and benchmarked in isolation. We introduce TeamGym, an environment for evaluating and training language model-based agents on team decision-making problems constructed from real-world legal, finance, medical, and software engineering corpora. TeamGym introduces a method to identify a minimal set of facts, each element of which is necessary and all of which are collectively sufficient for a correct final decision, which we call pivotal information. This enables TeamGym to both control the distribution of pivotal information and track how well agents identify and integrate pivotal information when making team decisions. Examining 8 language models on 12 source corpora, we find that current AI agents often fail to effectively share information: Distributing pivotal information across participants lowers success rate by 22.9 percentage points on average relative to giving the same information to a single model (a communication gap). We also document that participants do not effectively retrieve decision-relevant information on their own: A team's success rate is lowered by a further 19.9 points when participants must identify and extract pivotal information from source material rather than receiving it directly (a retrieval gap). To help remedy these deficits, we use TeamGym to train policies through reinforcement learning on team decision loss. Across two policy-training experiments, we find that training improves final-decision quality and induces emergent coordination in participation, speaker selection, and communication, even though the reward evaluates only the final decision.
Yubin Kim, Ken Gu, Chanwoo Park, Chunjong Park, Samuel Schmidgall, A. Ali Heydari, Yao Yan, Zhihan Zhang 等 20 位作者
Agents, language model-based systems capable of reasoning, planning, and acting are widely adopted in real-world tasks, yet how their performance changes as these systems scale across key dimensions remains underexplored. We introduce quantitative scaling principles for agent systems as a predictive model, capturing how performance varies with coordination, model capability, and measurable system and task factors. Across 260 configurations spanning six agentic benchmarks, five canonical architectures (Single-Agent and four Multi-Agent: Independent, Centralized, Decentralized, Hybrid), and three LLM families, we perform controlled evaluations, standardizing tools, prompts, and compute to isolate architectural effects. The resulting model achieves a cross-validated R^2=0.373 across all six benchmarks (R^2=0.413 with a task-grounded capability metric). We identify a robust capability-saturation effect and additional patterns: (1) a coordination yields diminishing returns once single-agent baselines exceed certain performance; (2) tool-heavy tasks appear to incur multi-agent overhead; and (3) architectures without centralized verification tend to propagate errors more than those with centralized coordination. Relative performance change compared to single-agent baseline ranges from +80.8% on decomposable financial reasoning to -70.0% on sequential planning, demonstrating that architecture-task alignment determines collaborative success. The framework identifies the best-performing architecture for 87% of held-out configurations and shows consistent relative architecture preferences on unseen frontier models. Agent effectiveness depends on alignment between coordination and task structure, and that mismatched coordination degrades the performance.