← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2605.24202 · v3
When Does Multi-Agent RL Improve LLM Workflows? Workflow, Scale, and Policy-Sharing Tradeoffs
首次提交 2026-05-23 04:43
版本更新 2026-11-02 15:07
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
摘要
Outcome-reward RL can train every role of a multi-agent LLM workflow. Its benefit is hard to predict because the reward assigns no credit to individual roles and a shared policy trades pooled data against specialization. We ask when this training improves a workflow over its base model and single-agent RL, and what each role learns. We train three workflows (Eval-Opt, Voting, Orch-Workers) with GRPO on math and code at three Qwen3 scales, with one policy for all roles (Shared-Policy, SP) or one per role type (Isolated-Policy, IP). Every workflow gains by adapting to its structure; this does not make a role better than training it alone. Single-agent RL in the same structure matches or beats trained Voting and Orch-Workers, and within the grid only Eval-Opt under IP exceeds it. Eval-Opt's evaluator learns when to retry and its generator learns to complete the retried attempts, a joint strategy that a single policy trained alone does not acquire. Under SP, per-output token averaging sets each role's gradient share, a hidden hyperparameter absent from single-agent RL, and the solving roles learn slowly; reweighting it gives SP the speed and peak of IP, and its decline. Under IP, a parallel role, whose instances share one adapter, takes one optimizer step per instance per training step and can drift after the peak as its entropy rises and accuracy declines. Merging those steps delays the decline. Our code is at: https://github.com/XHMY/marl-llm-workflows
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v3 · 2026-11-02 15:07 · 最新观测版本
When Does Multi-Agent RL Improve LLM Workflows? Workflow, Scale, and Policy-Sharing Tradeoffs
Outcome-reward RL can train every role of a multi-agent LLM workflow. Its benefit is hard to predict because the reward assigns no credit to individual roles and a shared policy trades pooled data against specialization. We ask when this training improves a workflow over its base model and single-agent RL, and what each role learns. We train three workflows (Eval-Opt, Voting, Orch-Workers) with GRPO on math and code at three Qwen3 scales, with one policy for all roles (Shared-Policy, SP) or one per role type (Isolated-Policy, IP). Every workflow gains by adapting to its structure; this does not make a role better than training it alone. Single-agent RL in the same structure matches or beats trained Voting and Orch-Workers, and within the grid only Eval-Opt under IP exceeds it. Eval-Opt's evaluator learns when to retry and its generator learns to complete the retried attempts, a joint strategy that a single policy trained alone does not acquire. Under SP, per-output token averaging sets each role's gradient share, a hidden hyperparameter absent from single-agent RL, and the solving roles learn slowly; reweighting it gives SP the speed and peak of IP, and its decline. Under IP, a parallel role, whose instances share one adapter, takes one optimizer step per instance per training step and can drift after the peak as its entropy rises and accuracy declines. Merging those steps delays the decline. Our code is at: https://github.com/XHMY/marl-llm-workflows
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗