PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 11, 2025Electronics0 citationsOpen Access

Multi-Agent Coordination Strategies vs Retrieval-Augmented Generation in LLMs: A Comparative Evaluation

View Full Paper
IRIrina RadevaИПИван ПопчевLDLyubka Doukovska

Key Points

  • This evaluation compares multi-agent coordination strategies with retrieval-augmented generation in language models.
  • Tested four coordination strategies: collaborative, sequential, competitive, hierarchical.
  • Evaluated on Mistral 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Granite 3.2 8B using 100 question-answer pairs.
  • Assessed performance with Composite Performance Score and Threshold-aware CPS across nine metrics.
  • All multi-agent configurations showed degradation in performance compared to single-agent baselines, ranging from −4.4% to −35.3%.
  • Llama 3.1 8B tolerated sequential and hierarchical coordination with minimal degradation (−4.9% to −5.3%).
  • Granite 3.2 8B exhibited 14–35% degradation across all strategies.

Abstract

This paper evaluates multi-agent coordination strategies against single-agent retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for open-source language models. Four coordination strategies (collaborative, sequential, competitive, hierarchical) were tested across Mistral 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Granite 3.2 8B using 100 domain-specific question–answer pairs (3100 total evaluations). Performance was assessed using Composite Performance Score (CPS) and Threshold-aware CPS (T-CPS), aggregating nine metrics spanning lexical, semantic, and linguistic dimensions. Under the tested conditions, all 28 multi-agent configurations showed degradation relative to single-agent baselines, ranging from −4.4% to −35.3%. Coordination overhead was identified as a primary contributing factor. Llama 3.1 8B tolerated Sequential and Hierarchical coordination with minimal degradation (−4.9% to −5.3%). Mistral 7B with shared context retrieval achieved comparable results. Granite 3.2 8B showed degradation of 14–35% across all strategies. Collaborative coordination exhibited the largest degradation across all models. Study limitations include evaluation on a single domain (agriculture), use of 7–8B parameter models, and homogeneous agent architectures. These findings suggest that single-agent RAG may be preferable for factual question-answering tasks in local deployment scenarios with computational constraints. Future research should explore larger models, heterogeneous agent teams, role-specific prompting, and advanced consensus mechanisms.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Radeva et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69401b172d562116f28f73f4https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14244883
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Capable language models can outgrow the benefits of collaboration2026 · 1 citations
  2. 2MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agents2025
  3. 3Do multi-agent LLMs improve causal identification? A controlled, cost-aware study on CLadder2026
  4. 4Retrieval-Augmented Generation vs. Baseline LLMs: A Multi-Metric Evaluation for Knowledge-Intensive Content2025 · 12 citations
  5. 5Multi agent retrieval validation and knowledge reasoning for enhanced retrieval augmented generation2026