FlowReasoner: Reinforcing Query-Level Meta-Agents

Paper · arXiv 2504.15257 · Published April 21, 2025
Multi-Agent SystemsReinforcement LearningReasoning Model Architectures

This paper proposes a query-level meta-agent named FLOWREASONER to automate the design of query-level multi-agent systems, i.e., one system per user query. Our core idea is to incentivize a reasoning-based meta-agent via external execution feedback. Concretely, by distilling DeepSeek R1, we first endow the basic reasoning ability regarding the generation of multi-agent systems to FLOWREASONER. Then, we further enhance it via reinforcement learning (RL) with external execution feedback. A multi-purpose reward is designed to guide the RL training from aspects of performance, complexity, and efficiency. In this manner, FLOWREASONER is enabled to generate a personalized multi-agent system for each user query via deliberative reasoning. Experiments on both engineering and competition code benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of FLOWREASONER.

Large language models (LLMs) [1, 40, 43, 52, 30] have exhibited remarkable power in various meaningful yet challenging domains, like chatbots [35], code [9], math [36], robotics [23], etc. LLM-based multi-agent systems [17, 51, 26], which are characterized by planning, reasoning, tool use, and memory, become the foundation of these LLM-driven applications.1 While effective, most of them are manually designed, increasing human resource costs and limiting scalability.

To mitigate this challenge, early automatic methods are proposed to optimize the prompts [55, 22, 61, 53] or hyper-parameters [41]. But they still rely on the fixed workflow of the multi-agent system, which requires human effort to manually design workflows for each new scenario. From this motivation, various graph-based methods [64, 33, 56, 11] formulate the workflows as graphs or networks and automate the workflow designs. However, the structural complexity of graphs limits their scalability [18]. To overcome this limitation, state-of-the-art methods represent the multi-agent systems as programming codes [18] and prompt a performant LLM, e.g., GPT-4o, as a meta-agent to optimize workflows via complex search algorithms on carefully designed search sets [58, 42, 57].

These previous methods focus on task-level meta-agents, generating merely a single task-specific multi-agent system that applies to one kind of task, e.g., code generation task, as in Figure 1 (a). However, for individual user queries, these one-size-fits-all systems lack the capability for automatic adaptation. To enhance the adaptability of multi-agent systems for individual user queries, this paper aims to design a query-level meta-agent to generate a query-specific multi-agent system for each user query, e.g., build a 2048 game, as shown in Figure 1 (b).

A multi-purpose reward is designed to guide RL training, focusing on performance, complexity, and efficiency. During inference, FLOWREASONER leverages deliberative reasoning to generate a novel query-level multi-agent system for each user query, achieving one system per user query.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

When and why do multi-agent systems outperform single-agent models? How reliably do personas predict individual user behavior across contexts? What graph topologies best support reasoning and model generalization? What reward signal properties actually drive reasoning improvements? What factors beyond tokens drive cost and efficiency in agents? How does decomposing complex reasoning into subtasks affect performance and safety? Can AI systems genuinely understand social norms and relationships? How can process reward models scale to handle complex reasoning traces? Can agents autonomously develop skills through experience and feedback? Why do accuracy-optimized recommender systems fail to preserve diverse interests? Does AI assistance help or harm professional skill development? How should agents consolidate and manage memory across sessions? How do AI performance impacts differ across workers with different ability levels? Why do independent language models converge on similar outputs? Do evolved harness edits learn generalizable strategies or just memorize?