One thing that stood out to me is that many of the reported gains from coordination seem highly task topology dependent rather than agent count dependent.
In particular, the error amplification vs. containment difference between independent and centralized coordination feels like an architectural property, not an optimization artifact. It suggests that scaling failures may come less from “too many agents” and more from mismatched coordination geometry relative to task dimensionality.
I’m curious whether the authors experimented with adaptive coordination strategies that change topology mid task (e.g., collapsing from decentralized to centralized once saturation or error coupling is detected) or whether the evaluation assumes a fixed coordination structure per run.
One thing that stood out to me is that many of the reported gains from coordination seem highly task topology dependent rather than agent count dependent.
In particular, the error amplification vs. containment difference between independent and centralized coordination feels like an architectural property, not an optimization artifact. It suggests that scaling failures may come less from “too many agents” and more from mismatched coordination geometry relative to task dimensionality.
I’m curious whether the authors experimented with adaptive coordination strategies that change topology mid task (e.g., collapsing from decentralized to centralized once saturation or error coupling is detected) or whether the evaluation assumes a fixed coordination structure per run.