Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the effectiveness of multi-agent reinforcement learning (RL) workflows in improving the performance of large language models (LLMs) by comparing Shared-Policy and Isolated-Policy training approaches across various tasks and model scales. The findings reveal that while multi-agent RL generally enhances accuracy, the improvements are contingent on the specific workflow, task, and model scale, rather than solely on the policy-sharing mechanism. Notably, Isolated-Policy training achieves higher peak accuracy but is prone to significant degradation in performance, while Shared-Policy training redistributes failure patterns, highlighting the complex interplay between policy sharing and workflow dynamics.
Multi-agent RL can boost LLM accuracy, but the benefits hinge on the intricate balance of workflow, task, and model scale rather than just policy-sharing strategies.
Multi-agent LLM workflows route inference through specialized roles to lift end-task accuracy, but jointly training those roles with reinforcement learning is unstable in ways that are poorly understood. We study when end-to-end RL training of multi-agent LLM workflows improves over their base models, comparing Shared-Policy training, where all roles update one policy, with Isolated-Policy training, where each role has its own parameters. Our experimental matrix spans Eval-Opt, Voting, and Orch-Workers workflows, math and code tasks, and three model scales (0.6B, 1.7B, 4B). We find that multi-agent RL usually improves over base models, but gains depend jointly on workflow, task, and scale, not on policy sharing alone. Isolated-Policy tends to reach higher peak accuracy yet more often falls off a terminal accuracy cliff, while Shared-Policy training does not eliminate failure; it redistributes failure into qualitatively different patterns. We then explain the strongest of these patterns through role-level gradient dynamics induced by workflow topology and policy routing: under Isolated-Policy, parallel same-role agents on shared prompts amplify per-role gradients and drive terminal degradation in Voting and Orch-Workers workflows; under Shared-Policy, asymmetric per-step gradient mass causes the shared policy to be captured by the dominant role, producing different failure signatures by task and workflow. Together, the empirical map and its underlying mechanisms show that policy sharing routes training pressure through different channels rather than offering uniform stability, making it a design choice with workflow- and task-conditional tradeoffs.
