Adaptive In-conversation Team Building for Language Model Agents
Linxin Song, Jiale Liu, Jieyu Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Ao Luo, Shijian, Wang, Qingyun Wu, Chi Wang

TL;DR
This paper introduces Captain Agent, an adaptive multi-agent framework that dynamically forms teams of LLM agents for complex tasks, significantly improving accuracy and efficiency without task-specific tuning.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel adaptive team-building paradigm with the Captain Agent design, enabling flexible, dynamic team formation and management for multi-step problem solving.
Findings
Captain Agent outperforms existing methods with 21.94% accuracy improvement.
It enhances conversation quality of weaker LLMs.
Achieves competitive performance at low cost.
Abstract
Leveraging multiple large language model (LLM) agents has shown to be a promising approach for tackling complex tasks, while the effective design of multiple agents for a particular application remains an art. It is thus intriguing to answer a critical question: Given a task, how can we build a team of LLM agents to solve it effectively? Our new adaptive team-building paradigm offers a flexible solution, realized through a novel agent design named Captain Agent. It dynamically forms and manages teams for each step of a task-solving process, utilizing nested group conversations and reflection to ensure diverse expertise and prevent stereotypical outputs, allowing for a flexible yet structured approach to problem-solving. A comprehensive evaluation across six real-world scenarios demonstrates that Captain Agent significantly outperforms existing multi-agent methods with 21.94% improvement…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
1. The paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation on their approach. Including six real-world scenarios showing that there method is superior to various baseline and they also carry out a series of ablation study on 1) static team building vs adaptive team building 2) w and w/o tool library or agent library 3) the effect of different backbone llm 4) cost analysis. 2. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of relevant studies, effectively situating the current research within broader litera
The paper conducts an extensive set of experiments and provides a thorough analysis of its approach within the context of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). However, the main limitation appears to be in the novelty of the proposed contributions. 1. If I understand correctly, the proposed approach heavily relies on an existing MAS framework, AutoGen, which is already designed with scalability and flexibility in mind. While this paper extends AutoGen by adding new features, these additions may lack suffi
1. The adaptive team-building approach is novel and well-designed, allowing for dynamic adjustments based on task requirements. 2. The paper provides a comprehensive evaluation, demonstrating Captain Agent's effectiveness in varied tasks, from data analysis to programming. 3. The design aims to perform well with minimal prompt customization, enhancing scalability.
1. Performance improvements heavily rely on using GPT-4-0125-preview for Captain Agent, raising questions about whether the gains stem from model strength rather than the proposed team-building design. 2. Using GPT-4-0125-preview as the backbone for Captain Agent but not for all baselines could create an advantage that does not necessarily reflect the paradigm's effectiveness. Ensuring baselines operate with equivalent model capabilities would strengthen the fairness of the comparisons. 3. The a
1) The authors are tackling a very challenging problem and are proposing what seems to be a novel solution to this domain. The most significant contribution to me is the Reflector LLM that provides feedback to the agent builder such that it can learn a more efficient team. I also think it's great that the authors did cost analysis; however, it would be good to see what are other costs that could be measured such as latency. Is there a large increase in latency given the multitude of steps. 2) T
I think there can be much more clarity in the presentation of the paper and more discussion regarding certain components of the Captain Agent framework. Regarding discussion of certain components: 1) There isn't much discussion on the impact of the Reflector LLM. I would like to know what are specific examples of errors caught by this component and quantitative results showing its impact on overall performance. 2) Also there was a mention of a memory cache, but it's unclear how it was used i
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Speech and dialogue systems
