The Collaboration Tax: How Much LLM Multi-Agent Systems Pay to Coordinate
Summary
This paper formulates the collaboration tax in LLM multi-agent systems, measuring it across tasks and models to reveal predictable mechanisms and practical interventions.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 08/25/26, 04:27 AM
# The Collaboration Tax: How Much LLM Multi-Agent Systems Pay to Coordinate Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22152](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22152) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.22152) > Abstract:Multi\-agent systems built from large language models are deployed widely, yet how much performance is lost when two LLMs must coordinate rather than act alone remains unclear\. We formulate the collaboration tax as the team\-decentralisation loss of a two\-player cooperative game with private information, with two propositions characterising its sign and its equivalence to a max\-superadditivity violation\. We operationalise this definition on 32 solo\-tractable tasks grouped by source of grounding friction and measure it on 11 models from 7 providers\. The tax is structured along two no\-exception axes: a category ordering across every model and a monotonic decrease with capability\. The proximate mechanism is not a reasoning deficit but a four\-stage conversational cascade in which agents make ungrounded claims, fail to query the partner, skip integrating both views, and accept the answer without re\-derivation\. The tax is mechanically predictable from conversation features and partly tractable: a prompt intervention targeting all four stages closes a substantial fraction of the gap, with the dominant bottleneck differing across categories\. In heterogeneous pairs the tax is pulled toward the stronger partner rather than the additive midpoint, empirically realising the max\-superadditivity violation predicted by our framework\. Together these results recast collaboration in LLM systems as a measurable, predictable, and partly tractable cost\. ## Submission history From: Weixiang Sun \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/63d508bd/2608.22152)\] **\[v1\]**Sun, 23 Aug 2026 00:47:00 UTC \(5,367 KB\)
Similar Articles
LLM Agents for Deliberative Collaboration: A Study on Joint Decision Making Under Partial Observability
This paper formalizes deliberative collaboration for LLM agents under partial observability, introduces a scalable benchmark across multiple domains, and systematically evaluates representative LLMs, finding that complex tasks remain challenging while deliberation can enable error correction.
The Handoff Tax: Continuing Non-Native Trajectories in LLM Agents
This paper studies the cost-quality trade-off when handing off tasks between low-cost and high-cost LLM models, introducing the 'handoff tax' concept where full trajectory transfer during escalation yields suboptimal quality recovery at a cost premium.
Beyond Individual Intelligence: Surveying Collaboration, Failure Attribution, and Self-Evolution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems
This survey paper provides a unified review of LLM-based multi-agent systems, focusing on collaboration, failure attribution, and self-evolution through the LIFE framework, identifying open challenges and proposing a cross-stage research agenda.
Do LLM Agents Negotiate Rationally? A Mechanism-Design Framework for Verifiable Multi-Agent Interaction over A2A/MCP
This paper presents a mechanism-design framework for verifying negotiation and allocation tasks in LLM agents using A2A/MCP protocols. It evaluates rational behavior across models, finding that mechanism-level incentive compatibility does not automatically transfer to LLM agents.
When Does Personality Composition Matter for Multi-Agent LLM Teams?
This paper systematically examines how manipulating personality traits in multi-agent LLM teams affects performance across coding, research collaboration, and bargaining tasks, finding that effects depend critically on task structure.