Elizabeth Mieczkowski

Elizabeth Mieczkowski, Katherine M. Collins, Ilia Sucholutsky et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are growing increasingly capable, prompting recent interest in LLM teams. Yet, despite increased deployment of LLM teams at scale, we lack a principled framework for addressing key questions such as when a team is helpful, how many agents to use, how structure impacts performance -- and whether a team is better than a single agent. Rather than designing and testing these possibilities through trial-and-error, we propose using distributed systems as a principled foundation for creating and evaluating LLM teams. We find that many of the fundamental advantages and challenges studied in distributed computing also arise in LLM teams, highlighting the rich practical insights that can come from the cross-talk of these two fields of study.

Elizabeth Mieczkowski, Alexander Ku, Tiwalayo Eisape et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in teams, yet existing coordination approaches often occupy two extremes. Highly structured methods rely on fixed roles, pipelines, or task decompositions assigned a priori. In contrast, fully unstructured teams enable adaptability and exploration but suffer from inefficiencies such as error propagation, inter-agent conflicts, and wasted resources (measured in time, tokens, or file operations). We introduce Language Agent Teams for Task Evolution (LATTE), a framework for coordinating LLM teams inspired by distributed systems, where processors must operate under partial observability and communication constraints. In LATTE, a team of agents collaboratively construct and maintain a shared, evolving coordination graph which encodes sub-task dependencies, individual agent assignment, and the current state of sub-task progress. This protocol maintains consistency while empowering agents to dynamically allocate work, adapt coordination, and discover new tasks. Across multiple collaborative tasks and a variety of base models, we demonstrate how LATTE reduces token usage, wall-clock time, communication, and coordination failures (e.g. file conflicts and redundant outputs) while matching or exceeding the accuracy of standard designs including MetaGPT, decentralized teams, top-down Leader-Worker hierarchies, and static decompositions.

Elizabeth Mieczkowski, Ruaridh Mon-Williams, Neil Bramley et al.

When should we encourage specialization in multi-agent systems versus train generalists that perform the entire task independently? We propose that specialization largely depends on task parallelizability: the potential for multiple agents to execute task components concurrently. Drawing inspiration from Amdahl's Law in distributed systems, we present a closed-form bound that predicts when specialization improves performance, depending only on task concurrency and team size. We validate our model on two standard MARL benchmarks that represent opposite regimes -- StarCraft Multi-Agent Challenge (SMAC, unlimited concurrency) and Multi-Particle Environment (MPE, unit-capacity bottlenecks) -- and observe close alignment between the bound at each extreme and an empirical measure of specialization. Three follow-up experiments in Overcooked-AI demonstrate that the model works in environments with more complex spatial and resource bottlenecks that allow for a range of strategies. Beyond prediction, the bound also serves as a diagnostic tool, highlighting biases in MARL training algorithms that cause sub-optimal convergence to specialist strategies with larger state spaces.