Beyond Division of Labor: How Roles Shape Feedback and Recovery in Multi-Agent Systems
Chih-Hsuan Yang, Xinyang Li, Rajeev Thakur, Feng Yan
原文摘要
Roles in multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems allocate decisions as well as work. In a Planner--Executor--Reviewer team, the Reviewer's approval can determine when the team submits an answer and receives corrective feedback. We study both functions by varying role instructions while holding agents, topology, call budget, and ground-truth evaluator constant, using three open-weight models on Omni-MATH and two on SciBench. Removing roles largely eliminates functional specialization without lowering first-pass accuracy. After a failed first answer, however, submission decisions matter: a role-structured Reviewer often withholds approval, so its team submits less often and receives fewer evaluator verdicts. In an exploratory comparison with feedback available to both teams, the role-free team recovers more often across all five model--benchmark settings. Two further analyses support the importance of feedback opportunities. In a post hoc comparison at equal numbers of verdicts, the pooled recovery difference is small (role-structured minus role-free: $+0.009$, 95% interval $[-0.014,+0.033]$). In an exploratory intervention on $400$ Omni-MATH problems with gemma-4, keeping the role prompts but forcing submission in every cycle raises recovery from $0.198$ to $0.613$; the paired comparison detects no difference from the role-free team. The takeaway is to evaluate roles through recovery after failure as well as specialization. For systems with reliable external feedback, this requires measuring who may submit, how often the team receives feedback, and which agents can act on it.
cs.MA