/p/2026-10-04 · explainer
Paper explainer · 2610.00583 · Paliskara, Namchittai, Lampinen

Four agents did worse than one.

Your agent already shares things with other people’s agents — a repository, a calendar, a compute budget. This paper runs that situation on purpose: four users, one shared resource, and either one agent serving all of them or one agent each. The team loses in every environment tested. On a shared compute budget the coordinator captures 64% of the best possible value and the team 30%, falling to 7% when the agents cannot message each other. No model changed between those runs. Only who was holding the group’s goal.

01 · The problem

A team of agents is not a better agent

what the users share

who is serving them

The clinic, in full. Twenty-four scenarios in which urgent patients phone an overbooked practice and every booking displaces someone who has to be rebooked; a scenario only counts if both halves land.

Every model, both formations
02 · The mechanism

Nobody on the team is holding the group’s goal

03 · The channel

Letting the agents talk is not the fix

agents on the resource
Share of agents taking any action, four agents against sixteen

04 · What worked

The fixes are structural, and none of them travels

environment and model

Share of already-failed episodes recovered

05 · Why I care

Both behaviours scale with your traffic illustrative

the model family behind your agents

Results

What the paper actually measured

What it does not show

In practice