arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.00583

Worse Together: How Performance Breaks Down in Multi-User Multi-Agent Teams

Sahan Paliskara·Nattaput Namchittai·Andrew Lampinen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sahan Paliskara, Nattaput Namchittai, Andrew Lampinen. 2026-09-30. Worse Together: How Performance Breaks Down in Multi-User Multi-Agent Teams. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00583

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Reducing Cognitive Overhead in Tool Use via Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Recent advances in multi-agent systems highlight the potential of specialized small agents that collaborate via division of labor. Existing tool-integrated reasoning systems, however, often follow a single-agent paradigm in which one large model interleaves long-horizon reasoning with precise tool operations, leading to cognitive-load interference and unstable coordination. We present MSARL, a Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning framework that explicitly decouples reasoning from tool use. In MSARL, a Reasoning Agent decomposes problems and plans tool invocations, while multiple Tool Agents specialize in specific external tools, each trained via a combination of imitation learning and reinforcement learning with role-specific rewards. On mathematical problem solving with code execution, MSARL significantly improves reasoning stability and final-answer accuracy over single-agent baselines. Moreover, the architecture generalizes to diverse tool-use tasks, demonstrating that cognitive-role decoupling with small agents is a scalable blueprint for multi-agent AI design.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

LLM-based Agentic Reasoning Frameworks: A Survey from Methods to Scenarios

Recent advances in LLM-based agents highlight the importance of their reasoning frameworks, which guide the problem-solving process in diverse ways. This survey introduces a unified formal language to systematically categorize these frameworks at three compositional levels: single-agent, tool-based, and multi-agent methods. Following our taxonomy, we review key application scenarios across scientific discovery, healthcare, software engineering, society, economics, and general-purpose tasks. It also compares the distinct features and evaluation strategies of each category. Through our taxonomy and comparisons, our survey explores the designs and strengths of LLM-based agentic frameworks in different scenarios, reviewing the fast-paced development of complex agentic systems in the real world.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Moloch's Bargain: Emergent Misalignment When LLMs Compete for Audiences

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how information is created and disseminated, from companies using them to craft persuasive advertisements, to election campaigns optimizing messaging to gain votes, to social media influencers boosting engagement. These settings are inherently competitive, with sellers, candidates, and influencers vying for audience approval, yet it remains poorly understood how competitive feedback loops influence LLM behavior. We show that optimizing LLMs for competitive success can inadvertently drive misalignment. Using simulated environments across these scenarios, we find that, 6.3% increase in sales is accompanied by a 14.0% rise in deceptive marketing; in elections, a 4.9% gain in vote share coincides with 22.3% more disinformation and 12.5% more populist rhetoric; and on social media, a 7.5% engagement boost comes with 188.6% more disinformation and a 16.3% increase in promotion of harmful behaviors. We call this phenomenon Moloch's Bargain for AI--competitive success achieved at the cost of alignment. These misaligned behaviors emerge even when models are explicitly instructed to remain truthful and grounded, revealing the fragility of current alignment safeguards. Our findings highlight how market-driven optimization pressures can systematically erode alignment, creating a race to the bottom, and suggest that safe deployment of AI systems will require stronger governance and carefully designed incentives to prevent competitive dynamics from undermining societal trust.

cs.AI↗