second brain
source
← 首页

external-source

Rethinking Multi-Agent Collaboration: When More Is Less

Rethinking Multi-Agent Collaboration: When More Is Less

Note: body below is original English text extracted from arXiv abs / HTML. Do not treat this file as a translation.

arXiv:2609.19759 · published 2026-09-17 · submitted 17 Sep 2026

Abstract

The rapid advancement of large language models and single-agent harnesses has reshaped the landscape of autonomous systems, raising a critical question of when multi-agent collaboration offers genuine value. As individual agent capabilities continue to scale, multi-agent collaboration faces diminishing returns while incurring growing context overhead. Through systematic analysis, we delineate the capability boundaries of multi-agent collaboration relative to single-agent alternatives, showing that it confers systematic benefits specifically in long-horizon tasks with sparse dependencies, while single-agent harnesses remain superior in tightly coupled, sequential workflows. Building on these insights, we propose SAIGE, a lightweight multi-agent collaboration mechanism based on Semantic-Aware Incremental Graph Evolution. SAIGE models collaboration as a dynamically evolving graph, where nodes are agent instances spawned on demand and edges encode semantic dependencies established through content-based information retrieval. Experiments on long-horizon, complex task benchmarks show that SAIGE achieves a favorable trade-off between context efficiency and task performance, and that scaling the agent pool or deepening the recursion level does not consistently improve outcomes. Our findings suggest that multi-agent superiority is bounded by task structure rather than universal, and that more agents do not necessarily make a system more intelligent.

Authors

Yishuo Yuan, Yibo Wu, Yihan Zhang, Minyuan Sun, Shenliang Li, Xinkai Ma, Yifan Li, Jiaheng Liu

Key claims (verbatim-leaning English extract)

Structure (section headings from HTML)

(section headings from HTML)

Body excerpts (original English)

Abstract The rapid advancement of large language models and single-agent harnesses has reshaped the landscape of autonomous systems, raising a critical question of when multi-agent collaboration offers genuine value. As individual agent capabilities continue to scale, multi-agent collaboration faces diminishing returns while incurring growing context overhead. Through systematic analysis, we delineate the capability boundaries of multi-agent collaboration relative to single-agent alternatives, showing that it confers systematic benefits specifically in long-horizon tasks with sparse dependencies, while single-agent harnesses remain superior in tightly coupled, sequential workflows. Building on these insights, we propose SAIGE, a lightweight multi-agent collaboration mechanism based on Semantic-Aware Incremental Graph Evolution. SAIGE models collaboration as a dynamically evolving graph, where nodes are agent instances spawned on demand and edges encode semantic dependencies established through content-based information retrieval. Experiments on long-horizon, complex task benchmarks show that SAIGE achieves a favorable trade-off between context efficiency and task performance, and that scaling the agent pool or deepening the recursion level does not consistently improve outcomes. Our findings suggest that multi-agent superiority is bounded by task structure rather than universal, and that more agents do not necessarily make a system more intelligent. 1 Introduction The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of autonomous systems. As foundation models grow increasingly capable of handling long-horizon, complex tasks, the accompanying agent harnesses, such as Claude Code ( Anthropic, 2025 ) , Codex ( OpenAI, 2025a ) , and DeepSeek Harness ( DeepSeek, 2026a ) , have matured into highly sophisticated infrastructures. These single-agent systems now deliver robust, end-to-end execution in real-world scenarios, setting a formidable baseline for autonomy. In stark contrast, generic multi-agent collaboration frameworks often remain toy-level in practice, lingering on simplistic benchmarks ( Paech, 2024 ; Wang et al., 2024b ; Peng et al., 2024 ) and marginal performance gains ( Yun et al., 2026 ; Alzu’bi et al., 2026 ) . This widening gap compels a critical reexamination of when and why multi-agent collaboration offers genuine value over a well-equipped single-agent harness. Existing work often attributes the primary advantage of multi-agent systems to context isolation, which partitions a task to prevent context pollution and context rot ( Huang et al., 2026 ; Hong et al., 2025 ) . While intuitively appealing, this explanation remains largely qualitative and lacks a rigorous theoretical foundation. In this work, we aim to delineate the capability boundaries of multi-agent collaboration through graph theory. We formalize multi-agent collaboration by modeling task trajectories as dependency graphs, where subtasks are partitioned by bridge edges. This formalism reveals that multi-agent collaboration is not a universal panacea. Instead, it confers systematic benefits specifically in long-horizon tasks with sparse dependencies, where context isolation can be exploited without incurring prohibitive coordination overhead. Conversely, in tightly coupled, sequential workflows, single-agent harnesses remain superior. Building on these theoretical insights, we propose SAIGE (Semantic-Aware Incremental Graph Evolution), an elegant and general multi-agent collaboration mechanism. SAIGE models collaboration as a dynamically evolving graph, where nodes are agent instances spawned on demand and edges encode semantic dependencies established through content-based information retrieval. Rather than committing to a static topology upfront, SAIGE grows the subtask tree incrementally as execution unfolds, grounding orchestration decisions in actual execution feedback. We empirically validate our framework on long-horizon, complex task benchmarks, showing that SAIGE achieves a favorable trade-off between context efficiency and task performance compared to existing generic multi-agent methods. Notably, our ablation study indicates that neither a larger agent pool nor a deeper recursion hierarchy consistently improves performance, suggesting that more agents do not necessarily make a system more intelligent. Our findings offer a principled understanding of when collaboration provides meaningful advantage over single-agent execution, and suggest that indiscriminate multi-agent scaling warrants reconsideration. Multi-agent collaboration governs how agents coordinate, communicate, and align behaviors toward shared objectives, evolving from rigid predefined structures to adaptive, context-aware interactions. Role allocation ranges from static, pre-assigned responsibilities ( Chen et al., 2025 ; Fei et al., 2026 ) to dynamic selection or runtime instantiation based on task demands ( Wu et al., 2023 ; Chen et al., 2023 ; Alzu’bi et al., 2026 ) . Communication likewise spans explicit message passing via structured documents or natural language ( Hong et al., 2024 ; Wang et al., 2025c ; Mou et al., 2025 ) and implicit inference from environmental cues ( Park et al., 2023 ; Zou et al., 2026 ) . Information flow further structures these interactions as sequential pipelines or parallel exploration ( Shen et al., 2023 ; Wang et al., 2024a ) , while interaction patterns ultimately manifest as cooperative or competitive dynamics ( Yang et al., 2026 ; Fu et al., 2023 ) . Multi-agent topology serves as a critical structural framework for governing agent execution, communication, and interactions. While early attempts often embedded structural organization implicitly ( Chan et al., 2023 ; Wu et al., 2023 ; Khattab et al., 2023 ) , recent practices have explicitly represented multi-agent organizations as graphs ( Liu et al., 2024 ; Zhuge et al., 2024 ; Qian et al., 2025 ) . These topologies generally fall into three representative paradigms: centralized, distributed, and hybrid. Centralized topologies leverage a global coordinator for information aggregation and routing ( Zhang et al., 2026a ; Li et al., 2025 ) ; distributed topologies employ peer-to-peer communication and localized routing ( Yang et al., 2025 ; Wang et al., 2025a ) to enhance autonomy and scalability; and hybrid topologies combine centralized strategic planning with decentralized execution ( Qian et al., 2024 ; Hong et al., 2024 ; Zhang et al., 2026b ) . Concretely, these orchestration strategies manifest as distinct structural morphologies, including chain ( Qian et al., 2024 ; Hong et al., 2024 ; Holt et al., 2025 ) , star ( Wu et al., 2023 ; Yan et al., 2024 ) , tree ( Ishibashi and Nishimura, 2024 ) , and general graph topologies ( Qian et al., 2025 ; Yun et al., 2026 ) . What is the core of multi-agent collaboration, and under what idealized conditions does it genuinely help? We take a deliberately idealized route: we ask what multi-agent collaboration is fundamentally doing to a task, and derive its benefit from that answer, leaving the gap between the idealized and the practical as a source of empirically testable predictions rather than a hidden assumption. Consider a task trajectory of length T T : τ = { x 1 , x 2 , … , x T } \tau={x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{T}} , where each x t = ( o t , a t ) x_{t}=(o_{t},a_{t}) denotes the interaction tuple at step t t , consisting of the new observation o t o_{t} received and the action a t a_{t} taken by the agent. Let ℋ t = { x 1 , … , x t − 1 } \mathcal{H}{t}={x{1},\ldots,x_{t-1}} denote the historical context available before generating x t x_{t} . This history grows monotonically with t t , and the agent’s decisions may depend on arbitrary subsets of this history. To characterize these dependencies formally, we define a value function Q t ​ ( a t ∣ o t , ℋ t ) Q_{t}(a_{t}\mid o_{t},\mathcal{H}{t}) that represents the expected return of taking action a t a{t} given historical context ℋ t \mathcal{H}{t} . For any pair of nodes x i , x t ∈ τ x{i},x_{t}\in\tau with i < t i<t , we say that x t x_{t} has a direct dependency on x i x_{i} if removing the interaction tuple x i x_{i} from the historical context causes a significant drop in the action value at step t t : where ℋ t ∖ { x i } \mathcal{H}{t}\setminus{x{i}} denotes the historical context with the contribution of x i x_{i} removed, and δ > 0 \delta>0 is a predefined threshold. Since all edges point forward in time, the trajectory naturally induces a directed acyclic graph 𝒢 = ( 𝒱 , ℰ ) \mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}) , with node set 𝒱 = τ \mathcal{V}=\tau . Each directed edge ( x i , x t ) ∈ ℰ ⊆ 𝒱 × 𝒱 (x_{i},x_{t})\in\mathcal{E}\subseteq\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{V} indicates that node x t x_{t} directly depends on node x i x_{i} . We further assume that a task trajectory contains no redundant interactions. Specifically, every node in the trajectory contributes to at least one subsequent decision, implying that each node has out-degree at least one in the dependency graph, with the terminal node serving as the unique sink. Under this assumption, the induced DAG 𝒢 \mathcal{G} is weakly connected. This assumption is mild in practice, as interactions that do not influence any future step can be discarded from the trajectory without affecting the task outcome. Within the DAG 𝒢 \mathcal{G} , certain edges serve as critical information channels connecting distinct regions of the graph. An edge ( x i , x t ) ∈ ℰ (x_{i},x_{t})\in\mathcal{E} is a bridge edge if its removal increases the number of weakly connected components of 𝒢 \mathcal{G} . Let ℰ ∗ ⊆ ℰ \mathcal{E}^{}\subseteq\mathcal{E} denote the set of all bridge edges. Removing all bridge edges from 𝒢 \mathcal{G} decomposes the graph into m m weakly connected components 𝒢 ∖ ℰ ∗ = 𝒞 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ 𝒞 m \mathcal{G}\setminus\mathcal{E}^{}=\mathcal{C}{1}\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{C}{m} . The corresponding subtask trajectory is defined as the ordered sequence of nodes in 𝒞 k \mathcal{C}{k} : τ ( k ) = { x n 1 , x n 2 , … , x n T k } ⊆ τ \tau{(k)}={x_{n_{1}},x_{n_{2}},\ldots,x_{n_{T_{k}}}}\subseteq\tau , where T k = | 𝒞 k | T_{k}=|\mathcal{C}{k}| , and the subtask trajectories collectively partition the original trajectory: τ = τ ( 1 ) ∪ τ ( 2 ) ∪ ⋯ ∪ τ ( m ) \tau=\tau{(1)}\cup\tau_{(2)}\cup\cdots\cup\tau_{(m)} . In multi-agent systems, this decomposition has a natural interpretation: each subtask τ ( k ) \tau_{(k)} is assigned to an individual agent responsible for executing that segment of the trajectory. The bridge edges between components correspond to communication channels between the respective agents, enabling information flow across subtask boundaries when necessary. Let 𝒱 𝒮 = { τ ( 1 ) , τ ( 2 ) , … , τ ( m ) } \mathcal{V}{\mathcal{S}}={\tau{(1)},\tau_{(2)},\ldots,\tau_{(m)}} denote the set of subtask trajectories. The directed edges between subtasks are induced by the bridge edges ℰ ∗ \mathcal{E}^{} . Since each bridge edge connects nodes from different components, this yields a well-defined relation: The pair 𝒯 = ( 𝒱 𝒮 , ℰ 𝒮 ) \mathcal{T}=(\mathcal{V}{\mathcal{S}},\mathcal{E}{\mathcal{S}}) forms a subtask tree that captures information flow at the granularity of subtasks. Let c ⁡ ( x ) c(x) denote the non-negative computational overhead of including interaction tuple x x in the historical context. For a subtask trajectory τ ( k ) = { x n 1 , … , x n T k } \tau_{(k)}={x_{n_{1}},\ldots,x_{n_{T_{k}}}} , let ℬ k ⊆ ℰ ∗ \mathcal{B}_{k}\subseteq\mathcal{E}^{} denote the set of bridge edges that enter τ ( k ) \tau_{(k)} , i.e., ℬ k = { ( x p , x q ) ∈ ℰ ∗ ∣ x q ∈ τ ( k ) } . \mathcal{B}{k}={(x{p},x_{q})\in\mathcal{E}^{}\mid x_{q}\in\tau_{(k)}}. Let idx ⁡ ( x , τ ) \operatorname{idx}(x,\tau) denote the index of node x x within trajectory τ \tau . The total context cost of executing subtask τ ( k ) \tau_{(k)} is decomposed as where C I ​ ( τ ( k ) ) C_{I}(\tau_{(k)}) accounts for the cost of accumulating historical context from nodes within the same subtask, and C E ​ ( τ ( k ) ) C_{E}(\tau_{(k)}) accounts for the cost of pulling context x p x_{p} from predecessor subtasks via incoming bridge edges, starting from the position of the target node x q x_{q} through all subsequent steps. For the original monolithic trajectory τ \tau , there are no incoming bridge edges, so ℬ = ∅ \mathcal{B}=\varnothing , and the cost is simply: Our key claim is that, under idealized conditions where the complete task trajectory is known in advance, decomposing the trajectory into subtasks reduces the total context cost. The core of the proof is the following lemma, which shows that partitioning a trajectory along a single bridge edge does not increase the total context cost. The detailed proof of Lemma 1 is deferred to Appendix A . For any trajectory τ ( S ) = τ ( L ) ∪ τ ( R ) \tau_{(S)}=\tau_{(L)}\cup\tau_{(R)} partitioned into two subtask trajectories by a single bridge edge ( x L , x R ) (x_{L},x_{R}) with x L ∈ τ ( L ) x_{L}\in\tau_{(L)} and x R ∈ τ ( R ) x_{R}\in\tau_{(R)} , the sum of the context costs of the two subtask trajectories is no greater than the cost of the original trajectory: Recursively applying Lemma 1 to τ ( L ) \tau_{(L)} and τ ( R ) \tau_{(R)} yields: This establishes that, when the task trajectory is known and the decomposition is performed correctly, multi-agent decomposition reduces context cost. It should be noted that this analysis does not account for context compression or other mitigation strategies that may alter the cost structure. The decomposition above is post-hoc : it presumes complete knowledge of the entire trajectory τ \tau and its dependency structure. In practice, the trajectory unfolds sequentially, and the DAG 𝒢 \mathcal{G} is not known in advance. The objective of multi-agent orchestration is therefore to predict the bridge edges ℰ ∗ \mathcal{E}^{} before or during execution, without access to the complete trajectory. Let ℰ ∗ \mathcal{E}^{} denote the true set of bridge edges induced by the full trajectory, and let ℰ ^ t \hat{\mathcal{E}}{t} be the set of bridge edges predicted by the orchestration strategy at time t t based on the observed prefix τ < t \tau{<t} . Since the true bridge edges ℰ ∗ \mathcal{E}^{} are only revealed after the entire trajectory is complete, the prediction ℰ ^ t \hat{\mathcal{E}}{t} concerns edges that lie in the future, i.e., edges e i → j e{i\to j} with j > t j>t . The orchestration problem is to minimize the expected discrepancy between the true and predicted bridge edge sets: where ℒ \mathcal{L} is a loss function that measures the dissimilarity between two sets of directed edges over 𝒱 \mathcal{V} . A correct prediction partitions the trajectory into the true subtasks; an incorrect prediction results in suboptimal decomposition and diminished context cost reduction. Our theoretical and empirical results jointly characterize when multi-agent collaboration helps and why its benefits are bounded. When collaboration pays off. Multi-agent collaboration is effective precisely when a task admits relatively independent subtasks, so that each agent maintains a focused context window and excludes task-irrelevant information. A single-agent system, by contrast, must accumulate observations indiscriminately, degrading the signal-to-noise ratio and increasing the risk of erroneous execution. This benefit is contingent on the accuracy of bridge-edge prediction: a mispredicted edge can trap an agent in a local deadlock while awaiting a dependency that never materializes, or inflate communication overhead as agents recover from an erroneous partition. The cost of isolation. Context isolation localizes each agent’s working memory to its subtask, containing failures within the corresponding scope rather than letting them contaminate the global context. This mitigates the incomplete workflows and premature termination that plague single-agent execution on long-horizon tasks, at the cost of higher aggregate token consumption, since decomposition extends the overall workflow. Why scaling does not help. Because each bridge edge is predicted from an observed prefix, prediction errors accumulate as the number of subtasks grows, while additional agents incur higher coordination costs in communication, synchronization, and conflict resolution. The marginal benefit of adding agents therefore diminishes, and may eventually be offset by accumulated errors and rising coordination overhead. This explains why more agents do not necessarily make a system more intelligent, and motivates a mechanism that grows its collaboration graph only where the task structure permits. We propose Semantic-Aware Incremental Graph Evolution (SAIGE), a lightweight mechanism for decomposing tasks under trajectory uncertainty. Rather than predicting all bridge edges in advance, SAIGE evolves the subtask tree incrementally during execution, growing the structure only when semantic dependencies are revealed by execution feedback. Bridge edges are inherently difficult to predict reliably at the outset, and premature commitment to a static topology risks compounding early mispredictions. Let ℰ ^ t − 1 \hat{\mathcal{E}}{t-1} and ℰ ^ t \hat{\mathcal{E}}{t} denote the predicted bridge-edge sets at consecutive steps, with ℰ ∗ \mathcal{E}^{*} the ground truth. Since SAIGE predicts incrementally, we have ℰ ^ t − 1 ⊆ ℰ ^ t \hat{\mathcal{E}}{t-1}\subseteq\hat{\mathcal{E}}{t} , and which indicates that deferring edge prediction until execution evidence accumulates is more reliable than committing to a topology upfront. Accordingly, SAIGE spawns subtask nodes on demand rather than pre-allocating them. A running agent delegates a child agent only when it detects a dependency boundary that satisfies the bridge-edge property, that is, a single-step dependency across which the subproblem can be executed independently given a bounded context summary. When such a boundary is present, the subproblem is delegated and the child agent executes autonomously with a self-contained instruction. When no such boundary is present, no child is spawned and the parent agent continues to execute the task monolithically. This conditional delegation is what allows SAIGE to avoid the decomposition penalty on densely coupled tasks. Edges between subtask nodes are established through progressive message fetching. Each agent writes its result upon completion and retrieves dependencies only when needed. Let ℬ k \mathcal{B}{k} denote the set of bridge edges entering subtask τ ( k ) \tau{(k)} , and let idx ⁡ ( x q , τ ( k ) ) \operatorname{idx}(x_{q},\tau_{(k)}) denote the step at which dependency on x p x_{p} becomes active. Progressive fetching incurs cost where the right-hand side loads all dependencies at the start. Sparse on-demand retrieval thus dominates push-based communication in context cost. More importantly, progressive fetching establishes communication channels dynamically rather than fixing them at decomposition time, allowing the collaboration graph to adapt to dependencies not fully determined in advance. This converts global topology prediction into localized retrieval decisions grounded in execution feedback. We evaluate on four benchmarks designed to assess agent capabilities on complex, long-horizon, realistic tasks. Terminal Bench 2.1 ( Merrill et al., 2026 ) tests agents on hard, realistic command-line interface tasks, with resolution rate as the primary metric. NL2Repo Bench ( Ding et al., 2026 ) evaluates long-horizon repository generation from a single natural-language requirements document, using the average test pass rate across all tasks as the primary metric. Deep Research Bench II ( Li et al., 2026 ) diagnoses deep research agents through rubrics derived from expert reports, scored as the fraction of rubrics passed. AgentIF-OneDay ( Chen et al., 2026 ) is a task-level instruction-following benchmark for general AI agents in daily scenarios, employing instance-level, rubric-based scoring with binary evaluation, separated bonus/penalty items, and file-content alignment. Detailed descriptions of all benchmarks are provided in Appendix B.1 . Single-Agent executes the full task within a single agent context and serves as the monolithic baseline. It runs on the native Codex CLI harness ( OpenAI, 2025b ) . Task Decomposition and Agent Generation (TDAG) ( Wang et al., 2025b ) is a multi-agent framework that decomposes complex tasks into smaller subtasks, assigns each subtask to a specifically generated subagent, and continuously summarizes successful execution patterns into reusable skills for future reference. DynTaskMAS ( Yu et al., 2025 ) is a dynamic task graph-driven framework for asynchronous and parallel LLM-based multi-agent systems. Graph-of-Agents (GoA) ( Yun et al., 2026 ) models multi-agent LLM communication through a graph-based framework, sampling relevant agents, constructing edges by evaluating response relevance, and aggregating responses via graph-based pooling. Further details on baseline implementations are provided in Appendix B.2 . To ensure harness consistency, all methods are instantiated on the Codex CLI harness. For multi-agent methods, token usage is aggregated across all agents. All baselines and our approach are built upon DeepSeek-V4-Pro ( DeepSeek, 2026c ) as the foundation LLM. For all multi-agent methods evaluated in this work, we impose a uniform constraint on agent hierarchy: the maximum recursion depth is set to 1 , meaning that spawned sub-agents are not permitted to recursively create further sub-agents. Additionally, the maximum number of agents is capped at 4. These constraints are imposed uniformly across all multi-agent methods to ensure system stability and prevent unbounded agent proliferation during execution. We examine the effect of relaxing these constraints in the ablation study (Section 5.4 ) and further verify it on the multi-agent baselines in Appendix B.3 . Table 1 presents the main results across all four benchmarks, reporting the primary metric along with input and output token counts for each benchmark. The four benchmarks differ in the dependency structure of their execution trajectories. Terminal Bench 2.1 and NL2Repo Bench exhibit dense inter-step dependencies: tool invocations, file reads, and file writes form long upstream-downstream chains in which later steps must condition on earlier outputs, leaving little room for independent execution. Deep Research Bench II and AgentIF-OneDay, by contrast, exhibit sparse dependencies, where large portions of the trajectory can proceed without conditioning on one another. This distinction provides a principled basis for the two regimes of multi-agent behavior observed below, with step-level evidence in Appendix C . On the densely coupled benchmarks, generic multi-agent methods fall below the single-agent baseline, suggesting that decomposition fragments the dependency chain and that coordination overhead can outweigh the benefit of context isolation. SAIGE does not exhibit the same degradation: it remains comparable to the single-agent baseline on Terminal Bench 2.1 and on NL2Repo Bench, while using fewer tokens than the other multi-agent methods. On the sparsely dependent benchmarks, decomposition appears more beneficial, and SAIGE performs competitively on both, with the most visible margin on AgentIF-OneDay, without the token inflation observed in the other multi-agent variants. GoA, by contrast, employs a more elaborate orchestration design yet yields weaker results on these benchmarks, which suggests that added coordination complexity does not by itself translate into gains when it is not matched to the task’s dependency structure. Taken together, these results are consistent with our central claim that the benefit of multi-agent collaboration is bounded by task structure rather than universal. SAIGE does not dominate the single-agent baseline on every benchmark, and its advantage is most evident on sparsely dependent tasks. Across both regimes, however, it appears to attain a favorable trade-off: it avoids the decomposition penalty on tightly coupled tasks, exploits context isolation on decomposable ones, and grows its collaboration graph in response to execution feedback rather than a pre-committed topology. To understand how multi-agent collaboration affects execution, we collect trajectories whose evaluation scores are significantly below the benchmark average and use DeepSeek-V4-Pro to semantically analyze their execution traces, yielding three recurring failure categories: Task Understanding and Execution Failure (TUEF) , Incomplete Workflow and Premature Termination (IWPT) , and Local Deadlock (LD) . Figure 3 summarizes their distribution across the four benchmarks. On the tightly coupled benchmarks, multi-agent methods are more prone to Local Deadlock: coordination introduces waiting, cyclic dependencies, and resource conflicts that prevent global progress. On the decomposable benchmarks, by contrast, single-agent methods more frequently exhibit Incomplete Workflow and Premature Termination, as the accumulation of context progressively degrades their ability to track the full tool chain, leading them to stop before the workflow is validated or the resolution criterion is satisfied. These two tendencies together clarify why multi-agent collaboration is beneficial only when the task structure admits effective decomposition. We conduct ablation experiments on Deep Research Bench II and AgentIF-OneDay to examine the sensitivity of SAIGE to agent count, recursion depth, and progressive message fetching. Tables 2 and 3 report the primary benchmark score and aggregated token usage across all agents for each configuration. For each recursion depth setting, we vary the maximum number of agents to isolate their joint effects, with “w/o Message Fetching” denoting SAIGE with progressive message fetching disabled under the default recursion depth ( D max = 1 D_{\max}=1 ). Across the tested configurations, increasing the agent budget does not consistently improve task performance. On both benchmarks, expanding the agent pool beyond the default setting tends to yield lower scores and higher token consumption, with individual configurations deviating from this trend. Deepening the recursion level shows a similar pattern: allowing sub-agents to spawn further sub-agents tends to reduce performance and increase token usage. Disabling progressive message fetching is also associated with a comparable decline, most notably on AgentIF-OneDay. Token usage generally increases with agent count and recursion depth, while task performance does not show a corresponding gain. These results suggest that more agents do not necessarily make a system more intelligent: beyond a certain point, the marginal agent appears to add coordination cost with limited additional problem-solving capacity. In this work, we reexamine the value of multi-agent collaboration in the era of increasingly capable single-agent harnesses. Through a graph-theoretic formalization of task trajectories, we show that multi-agent collaboration is not universally beneficial, but confers systematic advantages specifically on long-horizon tasks with sparse dependencies, where context isolation can be exploited without incurring prohibitive coordination overhead. Building on this insight, we propose SAIGE, a multi-agent collaboration mechanism that models collaboration as a dynamically evolving graph and establishes semantic dependencies through content-based information retrieval. Experiments on long-horizon benchmarks show that SAIGE achieves a favorable trade-off between context efficiency and task performance. These findings suggest that multi-agent superiority is bounded by task structure rather than universal, and that indiscriminate scaling of agents warrants reconsideration. Theorem 1. Let τ = { x 1 , x 2 , … , x T } \tau={x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{T}} be a task trajectory with no redundant interactions, and let ℰ \mathcal{E} denote the set of directed edges defined by the dependency criterion. Then the graph 𝒢 = ( 𝒱 , ℰ ) \mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}) with 𝒱 = τ \mathcal{V}=\tau is a weakly connected directed acyclic graph.