AIarXiv

Ranked by formulaVerdict: Notable

Locating and Closing Information Gaps in Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-step Web tasks often require several LLM agents to gather and combine evidence.

By Gong, Gao, Zhang +7

Score████░░░░░░4.0

Key numbers

  • 1.44× the skeleton
  • 8.0% and the mean score
  • 5.7% relative to the static

Caveats

  • Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.

VerdictWorth a reader's time today.

Read the originalPDF

Abstract

Multi-step Web tasks often require several LLM agents to gather and combine evidence. The communication graph of a fixed workflow restricts which agents can read each other's outputs: evidence retrieved by one agent may never reach the agent that needs it, leaving an information gap and an incomplete or incorrect answer. Adding a connection can deliver the missing evidence, but can also lead the receiver to adopt an incorrect upstream conclusion that displaces a correct answer; the final output alone does not separate the two. We propose Selective Probing and Link Insertion for Closing information gaps in multi-agent Execution (SPLICE), which locates information gaps per query and decides what to adopt after adding an edge. After the original workflow runs, SPLICE uses the query and node outputs to locate a possible gap, adds one directed edge from a source to a receiver to deliver the relevant evidence, and re-executes the receiver and affected downstream nodes, producing a candidate answer. The adoption decision reads both the final answers of the two runs and the process changes the edit caused inside the workflow: how far the receiver moved, where its new content came from, and whether the change reached the final answer. A selector trained on these process features chooses between adopting the candidate answer and retaining the original. On five benchmarks, SPLICE raises the task score on Web tool use by 8.0% and the mean score on four reasoning and planning benchmarks by 5.7% relative to the static skeleton, at 1.25 to 1.44× the skeleton's cost, and transfers zero-shot to four unseen backbones.

Yaxin Gong, Chongming Gao, Gangyi Zhang, Chenxiao Fan, Leyang Shen, Jiakai Wang, Dong Wang, Yang Liu, Haoyan Liu, Xinting Hu

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

Leverage4 / 5
A general-purpose tool used across several fields (Adam, ResNet, LoRA, next-generation sequencing).
24% of this desk’s rubric
Magnitude3 / 5
Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.
18% of this desk’s rubric
Evidence3 / 5
Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.
14% of this desk’s rubric
Novelty2 / 5
A new combination of known ideas.
16% of this desk’s rubric
Trajectory3 / 5
A clear path to scale.
18% of this desk’s rubric
Stakes2 / 5
Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).
10% of this desk’s rubric

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we propose); breadth (many tasks, zero/few-shot); gains (x-fold, relative gain); verification (multiple benchmarks, held-out test); stakes (general AI).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-10-18

Score████░░░░░░4.0

Score = 10 × (65% × adjusted merit / 10 + 25% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.

Merit
6.0 / 10
Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit
4.9 / 10
Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (46%).
Attention
0%
Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness
77%
Half-life decay since publication.

No attention signals recorded yet.

The record

  • Reviewed by heuristic-v10 on Oct 30, 2026, 13:36 UTC. Paper type: method.
  • Categories: cs.AI
  • BRIEF, No.8 in the Artificial Intelligence edition of October 30, 2026.