Self-Organizing Agent Teams Learn to Reason Together
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work. When the structure of a solution is unknown, useful roles and divisions of labor cannot be specified in advance; teams must learn from experience how to organize reasoning as it unfolds. Human teams routinely adapt this way, while existing AI agent teams rely on fixed protocols, explicit task decomposition, or routing. We introduce Self-Organizing Agent Teams (SAT), fixed teams of AI agents that learn reusable strategies from prior collaborations to organize roles, conversational phases, participation, and information flow. These strategies enable what we call collaborative computation: agents exchange, challenge, repair, and synthesize partial reasoning into solutions no member produced independently. In two independent settings, we learn teamwork strategies that transfer unchanged to unseen benchmarks, using only 15 mathematics and 25 graduate-level knowledge problems. Across five mathematics and physics benchmarks, self-organizing teams average 66.7% accuracy, versus 48.8% for their strongest member, 58.7% for compute-matched inference by that agent, and 59.0% for a perfect router over members' independent answers; on AIME 2026, they exceed this router by 13.4 points. Because gains vary across benchmarks, we ask when self-organizing collaboration helps. Across eight benchmarks, demonstrability (the organizational-psychology construct of whether a team can distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning) strongly tracks improvement over the strongest member (Spearman $ρ=0.90$, $p=0.005$): teams benefit most when correct reasoning can be recognized once it appears. More broadly, these results suggest that organization itself can become an agent capability: agent teams can learn how to reason together and produce solutions their members could not reach independently.
Results and benchmarks
Collective intelligence depends not only on what team members know, but also on how they organize their work.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic tool use | GPQA | Accuracy | 72.8 | paper-derived |
| Agentic tool use | MMLU-Pro | Accuracy | 72.8 | paper-derived |
| Agentic tool use | AIME 2024 | Improvement over best member . | 20.3 | paper-derived |
| Agentic tool use | AIME 2025 | Improvement over best member . | 20.8 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Compare implementation paths
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
- Maintenance
- Active
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 2
- Last push
- Oct 7, 2026 (22d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
- Dependency manifest missing
- Maintenance
- Active
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Oct 26, 2026 (3d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No Docker setup
- Dependency manifest missing
- Low confidence match
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- Marontis/agentic-engineering
Confidence: Low · 2 stars
- t-crew/memory-pulse
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.