arXiv preprint ·
Worse Together: How Performance Breaks Down in Multi-User Multi-Agent Teams
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
People are increasingly delegating tasks to AI agents, and those agents are increasingly encountering other people's agents over shared resources such as a codebase, a calendar, or a budget. When each agent acts for a different user with different goals, coordination often fails, and the group ends up worse off than if a single agent had acted for everyone. We study this multi-user, multi-agent setting across five frontier models and 77 scenarios in four environments: an API key environment in which agents share a compute budget, a clinic in which they share a calendar, a personal assistant environment in which they share a group order or booking, and a merge queue in which they share a release cutoff. In each scenario, we compare a single agent that serves every user (a coordinator) to a team in which each agent serves one user, with and without a communication channel between the agents. Teams deliver worse group outcomes than the coordinator in every environment: without a channel, they completely collapse in two environments, and even with one, coordination overhead creates substantial gaps. For example, in the personal assistant environment, the coordinator fulfills a targeted user request about twice as often as teams. We identify distinct behaviors associated with this poor group-level performance, including stalling as teams grow, overriding each other's actions, and fabricating claims. We find effective but environment-specific mitigations, such as a team lead, explicit procedural instructions, and a platform check that makes an agent read its peers' messages before committing. We will release the API key, clinic, and personal assistant environments as MAMUBench, comprising 74 scenarios for evaluating multi-user, multi-agent coordination.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
ReGain: Restoring Subject Fidelity in Personalization on Synthetic Images
Geometric Similarity in VLM Low-Level Vision Representations
Unveiling the Value of Motion for Cinematic Camera Trajectories
Learning Multiple Timescales for Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning
Concept-Grounded Attention: A Controlled Evaluation of Graph-Injected Attention, Temporal Versioning, and Epistemic Status
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.