@chllming/wave-orchestration 0.6.3 → 0.7.1

package/docs/context7/planner-agent/papers/verified-multi-agent-orchestration-a-plan-execute-verify-replan-framework-for-complex-query-resolution.md

@@ -0,0 +1,1173 @@
+---
+summary: 'Converted paper text and source links for Verified Multi-Agent Orchestration: A Plan-Execute-Verify-Replan Framework for Complex Query Resolution.'
+read_when:
+  - Reviewing harness and coordination research source material in the docs tree
+  - You want the extracted paper text with source links preserved
+topics:
+  - planning-and-orchestration
+  - harnesses-and-practice
+kind: 'paper'
+title: 'Verified Multi-Agent Orchestration: A Plan-Execute-Verify-Replan Framework for Complex Query Resolution'
+---
+# Verified Multi-Agent Orchestration: A Plan-Execute-Verify-Replan Framework for Complex Query Resolution
+
+<Note>
+Converted from the source document on 2026-03-22. The repo does not retain downloaded source files; they were fetched transiently, converted to Markdown, and deleted after extraction.
+</Note>
+
+## Metadata
+
+| Field | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| Content type | Paper / report |
+| Authors | Xing Zhang, Yanwei Cui, Guanghui Wang, Wei Qiu, Ziyuan Li, Fangwei Han, Yajing Huang, Hengzhi Qiu, Bing Zhu, Peiyang He |
+| Year | 2026 |
+| Venue | arXiv 2603.11445 |
+| Research bucket | P0 direct hits |
+| Maps to | DAG decomposition, parallel execution, verification, and replanning for complex queries. |
+| Harness fit | Direct blueprint for a planner-verifier harness loop instead of one-shot multi-agent delegation. |
+| Source page | [Open source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11445) |
+| Source PDF | [Open PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.11445.pdf) |
+
+## Extracted text
+### Page 1
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+V ERIFIED M ULTI -AGENT O RCHESTRATION: A P LAN -
+
+E XECUTE -V ERIFY-R EPLAN F RAMEWORK FOR C OM -
+
+PLEX QUERY R ESOLUTION
+
+Xing Zhang1 Yanwei Cui1 Guanghui Wang1 Wei Qiu2 Ziyuan Li2
+
+Fangwei Han2 Yajing Huang2 Hengzhi Qiu2 Bing Zhu2 Peiyang He1∗
+
+1AWS Generative AI Innovation Center 2HSBC
+
+ABSTRACT
+
+We present Verified Multi-Agent Orchestration (VMAO), a framework that
+
+coordinates specialized LLM-based agents through a verification-driven iterative
+
+loop. Given a complex query, our system decomposes it into a directed acyclic
+
+graph (DAG) of sub-questions, executes them through domain-specific agents in
+
+parallel, verifies result completeness via LLM-based evaluation, and adaptively
+
+replans to address gaps. The key contributions are: (1) dependency-aware parallel
+
+execution over a DAG of sub-questions with automatic context propagation, (2)
+
+verification-driven adaptive replanning that uses an LLM-based verifier as an
+
+orchestration-level coordination signal, and (3) configurable stop conditions that
+
+balance answer quality against resource usage. On 25 expert-curated market
+
+research queries, VMAO improves answer completeness from 3.1 to 4.2 and
+
+source quality from 2.6 to 4.1 (1–5 scale) compared to a single-agent baseline,
+
+demonstrating that orchestration-level verification is an effective mechanism for
+
+multi-agent quality assurance.
+
+1 INTRODUCTION
+
+Large language models (LLMs) have enabled a new generation of multi-agent systems where
+
+specialized agents collaborate to solve complex tasks. A central challenge in such systems is
+
+coordination: given a complex query that requires information from heterogeneous sources and
+
+diverse analytical expertise, how should agents be organized and assigned to sub-tasks? How
+
+can we ensure result quality without constant human oversight? When should the system stop
+
+iterating and synthesize a final answer? These questions are especially acute in domains like market
+
+research, where analysts gather data from internal databases, public filings, news sources, and
+
+competitor reports, then synthesize findings into actionable insights. Information is scattered across
+
+heterogeneous sources, analysis requires diverse expertise (financial, operational, competitive), and
+
+synthesis demands cross-referencing while resolving contradictions.
+
+Existing multi-agent frameworks fall short of these requirements. Debate-style approaches where
+
+agents critique each other’s outputs (Du et al., 2023) improve reasoning quality but lack structured
+
+task decomposition. Role-playing frameworks where agents assume personas (Li et al., 2023) enable
+
+collaboration but provide no mechanism for verifying completeness. More recent systems like
+
+AutoGen (Wu et al., 2024) and MetaGPT (Hong et al., 2024) offer flexible interaction patterns, yet
+
+still lack principled quality verification and adaptive refinement—critical requirements for production
+
+deployment where outputs must be reliable without constant human oversight.
+
+We introduce Verified Multi-Agent Orchestration (VMAO), a framework that addresses these gaps
+
+through three key contributions:
+
+1. DAG-Based Query Decomposition and Execution: Complex queries are decomposed into
+
+sub-questions organized as a directed acyclic graph (DAG), enabling dependency-aware
+
+parallel execution with automatic context propagation from upstream results.
+
+∗
+
+Corresponding author: peiyan@amazon.com
+
+1
+
+arXiv:2603.11445v2 [cs.AI] 15 Mar 2026
+
+### Page 2
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+2. Verification-Driven Replanning: An LLM-based verifier evaluates result completeness at
+
+the orchestration level, triggering adaptive replanning when gaps are identified—providing
+
+a principled coordination signal that is decoupled from individual agent implementations.
+
+3. Configurable Stop Conditions: Termination decisions are based on completeness thresh-
+
+olds, confidence scores, and resource constraints, enabling explicit quality-cost tradeoffs.
+
+On 25 expert-curated market research queries, VMAO improves answer completeness from 3.1 to
+
+4.2 and source quality from 2.6 to 4.1 (1–5 scale) compared to single-agent and static multi-agent
+
+baselines.
+
+2 RELATED WORK
+
+Multi-Agent Coordination and Tool Use. Recent surveys (Wang et al., 2024; Xi et al., 2023)
+
+document the rapid growth of LLM-based multi-agent systems, which vary in coordination strategy:
+
+AutoGen (Wu et al., 2024) uses conversational patterns, CAMEL (Li et al., 2023) employs role-
+
+playing, MetaGPT (Hong et al., 2024) enforces software engineering workflows, and HuggingGPT
+
+(Shen et al., 2023) orchestrates specialized models via a central controller. Orthogonally, work on
+
+tool use has focused on single-agent settings: ReAct (Yao et al., 2023b) established the thought-
+
+action-observation paradigm, Toolformer (Schick et al., 2023) enables self-supervised tool learning,
+
+and ToolLLM (Qin et al., 2023) scales to 16,000+ APIs. These lines of work address coordination
+
+and tool use separately, but production systems require both: multiple specialized agents, each with
+
+domain-specific tools, working in concert.
+
+Planning, Decomposition, and Verification. Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022), Tree-of-Thoughts
+
+(Yao et al., 2023a), and Least-to-Most prompting (Zhou et al., 2023) decompose complex reasoning
+
+into structured steps, but operate within a single LLM rather than distributing sub-tasks across
+
+specialized agents. For output quality, Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2022) aggregates multiple
+
+reasoning paths, Self-Refine (Madaan et al., 2023) iterates on single outputs, and Reflexion (Shinn
+
+et al., 2023) uses verbal reinforcement—all operating at the individual response level. Missing
+
+from prior work is verification at the orchestration level: evaluating whether collective results from
+
+multiple agents adequately address the original query, and triggering targeted replanning when gaps
+
+are detected.
+
+Agentic Search and Deep Research. Recent commercial systems have demonstrated the potential of
+
+multi-step agentic research: search-augmented assistants like Perplexity iteratively refine queries to
+
+synthesize information from web sources, while deep research features in frontier models (OpenAI,
+
+2025) perform extended multi-step investigation. These systems demonstrate the value of iterative
+
+research loops but are closed-source, making their coordination mechanisms difficult to study or
+
+reproduce. Our work provides an open, modular framework where the coordination strategy—
+
+particularly the verification-driven replanning loop—is explicit and configurable.
+
+Our Approach. VMAO synthesizes these threads into a unified framework for complex query
+
+resolution. We decompose queries into a DAG of sub-questions assigned to domain-specific agents,
+
+execute them in parallel with dependency-aware scheduling, verify collective completeness via LLM-
+
+based evaluation, and adaptively replan to address gaps. We evaluate VMAO on market research
+
+tasks, maintaining verifiable output quality through explicit coordination mechanisms.
+
+3 FRAMEWORK ARCHITECTURE
+
+3.1 OVERVIEW
+
+VMAO operates through five phases: Plan, Execute, Verify, Replan, and Synthesize (Figure 1a).
+
+Given a complex query, the system first decomposes it into sub-questions with assigned agent types
+
+and dependencies. It then executes these through specialized agents in parallel where dependencies
+
+permit. The verify phase evaluates completeness and identifies gaps. If deficiencies exist, the system
+
+replans by generating new sub-questions or marking incomplete ones for retry. This loop continues
+
+until stop conditions are met, triggering synthesis of a final answer with proper source attribution.
+
+2
+
+### Page 3
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+PLAN
+
+Query Decomp.
+
+EXECUTE
+
+DAG Parallel
+
+VERIFY
+
+LLM Complete.
+
+REPLAN
+
+Gap Filling
+
+SYNTHESIZE
+
+Merge & Cite
+
+incomplete
+
+Iterative Refinement Loop
+
+stop conditions met
+
+(a) Plan-Execute-Verify-Replan Architecture
+
+Tier 1: DATA
+
+RAG, Web
+
+Financial, Competitor
+
+Tier 2: ANALYSIS
+
+Analysis, Reasoning
+
+Raw Data
+
+Tier 3: OUTPUT
+
+Document
+
+Visualization
+
+Information Flow
+
+(b) Agent Taxonomy by Functional Tier
+
+Figure 1: (a) VMAO framework architecture showing the iterative Plan-Execute-Verify-Replan loop.
+
+(b) Agent taxonomy organized by functional tier with information flow from data gathering through
+
+analysis to output generation.
+
+Table 1: Sub-question structure generated by the QueryPlanner
+
+Field Description
+
+id Unique identifier (e.g., sq 001)
+
+question Specific, answerable question text
+
+agent type Agent from taxonomy to handle this question
+
+dependencies IDs of sub-questions that must complete first
+
+priority Execution priority (1–10); higher = more important
+
+context from deps Whether to include dependency results in prompt
+
+verification criteria Criteria for determining answer completeness
+
+Agents are organized into three functional tiers (Figure 1b): Tier 1 (Data Gathering) agents retrieve
+
+information from diverse sources, Tier 2 (Analysis) agents reason over this data, and Tier 3 (Output)
+
+agents produce final deliverables. This hierarchy reflects the natural information flow in research
+
+tasks and enables principled task assignment by the planner.
+
+3.2 PLANNING AND EXECUTION
+
+The QueryPlanner decomposes a complex query into sub-questions organized as a DAG (Table 1).
+
+An LLM identifies distinct information requirements, assigns each to an appropriate agent type,
+
+establishes dependencies where one sub-question requires another’s output, and sets execution
+
+priorities.
+
+The DAGExecutor then orchestrates execution while respecting dependencies and maximizing
+
+parallelism (Algorithm 1). It iteratively identifies ready questions—those whose dependencies
+
+have completed—and executes batches in parallel (default k = 3). For sub-questions with
+
+context from deps enabled, results from dependencies are prepended to the query. Figure 2a
+
+illustrates how independent sub-questions execute concurrently in Wave 1, while dependent questions
+
+execute in subsequent waves. Each execution is wrapped with a configurable timeout (default: 600s)
+
+and a tool call limiter to prevent infinite loops.
+
+3
+
+### Page 4
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+Algorithm 1 DAG-Based Parallel Execution
+
+Require: Execution plan P = (Q, G), max concurrent k
+
+Ensure: Results R = {r1,..., rn}
+
+1: completed ← ∅
+
+2: while |completed| < |Q| do
+
+3: ready ← {q ∈ Q: deps(q) ⊆ completed ∧ q /∈ completed}
+
+4: batch ← top-k(ready, by = priority)
+
+5: results ← parallel execute(batch)
+
+6: for (q, r) in results do
+
+7: if q.context f rom deps then
+
+8: r ← enrich with context(r, {R[d]: d ∈ deps(q)})
+
+9: end if
+
+10: R[q.id] ← r; completed ← completed ∪ {q}
+
+11: end for
+
+12: end while
+
+13: return R
+
+Query: "Why did service quality decline and what is the profit impact?"
+
+Wave 1 (Parallel)
+
+Wave 2 (Parallel)
+
+Wave 3
+
+sq_001
+
+RAG
+
+service metrics
+
+sq_002
+
+RAG
+
+customer feedback
+
+sq_003
+
+Financial
+
+profit data
+
+sq_006
+
+Web
+
+external factors
+
+sq_004
+
+Competitor
+
+benchmarking
+
+sq_007
+
+Analysis
+
+correlation
+
+sq_005
+
+Analysis
+
+root cause
+
+Time
+
+(a) DAG Execution Example
+
+Iteration 1 Iteration 2
+
+Execution Results
+
+sq_001 (0.90)
+
+sq_002 (0.45)
+
+sq_003 (0.85)
+
+sq_004 (0.30)
+
+sq_005 (0.25)
+
+Execution Results
+
+sq_001 (0.90)
+
+sq_002 (0.45)
+
+sq_003 (0.85)
+
+sq_004 (0.75)
+
+sq_005 (0.80)
+
++ sq_006 (0.80)
+
++ sq_007 (0.85)
+
+Overall: 40.0% | Complete: 2/5 Overall: 85.7% | Complete: 6/7
+
+REPLAN
+
+retry: [002, 004, 005]
+
+new: [006: external factors,
+
+007: correlation analysis]
+
+SYNTHESIZE
+
+>80% complete
+
+Ready for final answer
+
+(b) Verification and Replanning
+
+Complete Incomplete Inherited New
+
+Figure 2: (a) DAG execution: independent sub-questions execute in Wave 1; dependent questions in
+
+subsequent waves. (b) Verification-driven iteration: Iteration 1 identifies incomplete results, triggering
+
+replanning; Iteration 2 achieves sufficient completeness for synthesis.
+
+3.3 VERIFICATION, REPLANNING, AND SYNTHESIS
+
+The ResultVerifier evaluates whether execution results adequately answer their sub-questions (Fig-
+
+ure 2b). For each result, it produces: status (complete/partial/incomplete), completeness score
+
+(0–1), missing aspects, contradictions, and a recommendation (accept/retry/escalate). Results already
+
+marked complete are reused to avoid redundant LLM calls.
+
+When verification identifies gaps, the AdaptiveReplanner determines corrective actions: retry sub-
+
+questions with low scores while preserving previous results, introduce new queries to address specific
+
+missing aspects, or merge results from multiple attempts. A key feature is result preservation—
+
+previous results are stored and merged with retry attempts, enabling progressive refinement without
+
+losing earlier findings.
+
+Determining when to stop iterating is critical for balancing quality and cost. We introduce five
+
+configurable stop conditions (Table 2), evaluated after each verification phase: completeness threshold
+
+(80% of sub-questions answered), high confidence with partial coverage, diminishing returns (<5%
+
+improvement), token budget (1M tokens), and maximum iterations (3). When any condition is met,
+
+the system proceeds to synthesis.
+
+For large result sets (>15K characters or 10+ results), direct synthesis would exceed context limits.
+
+We address this through hierarchical synthesis: group results by agent type, synthesize within each
+
+group to produce condensed summaries, then integrate group summaries into a coherent final answer
+
+with proper source attribution.
+
+4
+
+### Page 5
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+Table 2: Stop conditions for orchestration termination
+
+Condition Threshold Rationale
+
+Ready for Synthesis 80% complete Sufficient sub-questions answered
+
+High Confidence 75% conf, 50% complete High reliability despite partial coverage
+
+Diminishing Returns <5% improvement Further iteration yields minimal gain
+
+Token Budget 1M tokens Hard cost limit
+
+Max Iterations 3 iterations Hard iteration limit
+
+Table 3: Agent taxonomy with tool allocation across MCP servers (42 unique tools total)
+
+Tier Agent Tools Key Capabilities
+
+1: Data
+
+RAG 13 Semantic, keyword, and hybrid retrieval; metadata
+
+filtering
+
+Web Search 4 General and AI-powered search, news retrieval
+
+Financial 7 Stock quotes, technical indicators, fundamentals
+
+Competitor 11 Market positioning, benchmarks, competitor news
+
+2: Analysis
+
+Analysis 20 Survey analytics, financial and competitor analysis
+
+Reasoning 24 Cross-domain reasoning with RAG, web, and financial
+
+tools
+
+Raw Data 1 Python execution (pandas, matplotlib)
+
+3: Output Document 4 Report generation, tables, source citations
+
+Visualization 6 Chart generation, statistical summaries
+
+4 IMPLEMENTATION
+
+We implement VMAO using LangGraph for workflow orchestration and the Strands Agent framework
+
+for agent execution, integrated with AWS Bedrock. Agent execution uses Claude Sonnet 4.5 as
+
+the primary model with Claude Haiku 4.5 as a fallback for graceful degradation; verification and
+
+evaluation use Claude Opus 4.5 to provide an independent quality signal. Agents access tools through
+
+the Model Context Protocol (MCP), which exposes domain-specific capabilities via independent
+
+HTTP microservices. This modular architecture allows adding new tools without modifying agent
+
+code.
+
+Table 3 shows the agent taxonomy with tool allocation across eight MCP servers (42 unique tools
+
+total). Each server runs independently, enabling horizontal scaling and fault isolation. Agents
+
+automatically select appropriate tools based on sub-question requirements.
+
+For production deployment, we implement several safety mechanisms: tool call limiters prevent
+
+infinite loops (max 10 consecutive same-tool calls, 50 total per agent), per-execution timeouts enforce
+
+bounded latency (default 600s), and phase-level token tracking enables budget enforcement. When
+
+the primary model (Sonnet 4.5) is unavailable, the system falls back to Haiku 4.5 with graceful
+
+degradation. Real-time observability is provided through Server-Sent Events that stream execution
+
+progress to the frontend.
+
+5 EXPERIMENTS
+
+5.1 DATASET: MARKET RESEARCH QUERIES
+
+We evaluate VMAO on market research tasks—a domain where traditional research typically
+
+requires 2–4 weeks of human effort. These tasks are challenging because relevant data is scattered
+
+across heterogeneous sources, answering questions requires diverse expertise (financial, operational,
+
+competitive), and synthesis demands cross-referencing while resolving contradictions. We curated 25
+
+queries from domain experts spanning four categories:
+
+5
+
+### Page 6
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+• Performance Analysis (8 queries): Operational metrics, trends, and causal factors. Example:
+
+“What factors explain the year-over-year change in customer satisfaction?”
+
+• Competitive Intelligence (7 queries): Comparison with industry peers and market position-
+
+ing. Example: “How does our market share compare to regional competitors?”
+
+• Financial Investigation (5 queries): Financial metrics combined with operational context.
+
+Example: “What is driving the change in revenue per customer?”
+
+• Strategic Assessment (5 queries): Open-ended synthesis across multiple dimensions. Ex-
+
+ample: “What are the key risks and opportunities for geographic expansion?”
+
+Query complexity varies from simpler queries (3–5 sub-questions, 2–3 agent types) to complex
+
+ones (8–12 sub-questions, 5+ agent types with multi-level dependencies). Each query consumes
+
+500K–1.1M tokens and requires 10–20 minutes of execution plus domain expert review, making 25
+
+queries a practical yet meaningful evaluation set.
+
+5.2 BASELINES AND CONFIGURATION
+
+We compare three configurations:
+
+• Single-Agent: One reasoning agent with access to all tools, relying on internal reasoning to
+
+determine tool invocation order.
+
+• Static Pipeline: Predefined agent sequence (RAG → Web → Financial → Analysis →
+
+Synthesis) without verification or replanning.
+
+• VMAO: Full framework with dynamic decomposition, parallel execution, verification-
+
+driven replanning, and stop conditions.
+
+All configurations use Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agent execution and the same tool set. We evaluate
+
+Completeness (how thoroughly all query aspects are addressed, 1–5 scale) and Source Quality (proper
+
+citation and traceability, 1–5 scale). Evaluation follows a two-stage process: an LLM judge (Claude
+
+Opus 4.5) first scores each response using structured rubrics, then human domain experts review and
+
+adjust scores where the LLM assessment appears inconsistent or misses domain-specific nuances.
+
+We deliberately use a different, more capable model for evaluation than for execution to reduce
+
+self-evaluation bias, though both models belong to the same family. In practice, human reviewers
+
+adjusted fewer than 15% of LLM scores, typically by ±0.5 points, indicating reasonable LLM-human
+
+alignment on these metrics.
+
+We evaluate Completeness rather than accuracy because deep research queries have no single ground
+
+truth—a question like “What factors explain declining satisfaction?” admits multiple valid answers.
+
+Completeness measures whether all relevant aspects are addressed with supporting evidence, better
+
+capturing the exploratory nature of research. Source Quality ensures answers are grounded in
+
+verifiable sources.
+
+5.3 RESULTS
+
+Table 4 presents the main results across all 25 queries. VMAO achieves substantially higher
+
+completeness (+35%) and source quality (+58%) compared to Single-Agent. The Static Pipeline
+
+improves over Single-Agent but cannot adapt when initial agents return insufficient results. VMAO’s
+
+verification-driven approach identifies gaps and adaptively replans, leading to more complete answers
+
+with better source attribution. The increased resource usage reflects verification overhead, justified by
+
+quality improvements.
+
+Figure 3(a) shows a typical token distribution across orchestration phases: execution dominates (61%)
+
+as agents invoke tools and process results, while verification and synthesis remain efficient. VMAO
+
+demonstrates consistent improvements across all query categories (Figure 3(b)), with the largest
+
+gains on Strategic Assessment queries (+53% completeness), which require synthesizing information
+
+across multiple dimensions. Performance Analysis queries show more modest gains, as these often
+
+have well-defined data sources that even single agents can locate.
+
+In our experiments, most queries (>75%) terminate via resource-based conditions (diminishing re-
+
+turns, max iterations, or token budget), reflecting conservative thresholds that prioritize thoroughness
+
+6
+
+### Page 7
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+Planning
+
+8%
+
+Execution
+
+61%
+
+Verification16%
+
+Replanning
+
+5%
+
+Synthesis
+
+10%
+
+(a) Token Usage by Phase
+
+Performance
+
+Analysis
+
+Competitive
+
+Intelligence
+
+Financial
+
+Investigation
+
+Strategic
+
+Assessment
+
+1
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+Completeness Score (1-5)
+
+3.4
+
+2.9
+
+3.2
+
+2.8
+
+3.7
+
+3.4
+
+3.6
+
+3.2
+
+4.1
+
+4.2
+
+4.3 4.3
+
+(b) Completeness by Query Category
+
+Single-Agent
+
+Static Pipeline
+
+VMAO (Ours)
+
+Figure 3: (a) Token usage breakdown by orchestration phase for a typical query. Execution dominates
+
+at 61%, while verification and synthesis remain efficient. (b) Completeness scores by query category
+
+across methods. VMAO shows consistent improvements, with largest gains on Strategic Assessment
+
+(+53%).
+
+Table 4: Comparison of orchestration methods on market research tasks. Completeness and Source
+
+Quality are co-scored by LLM and human evaluators (1–5 scale, higher is better).
+
+Method Completeness Source Quality Avg Tokens Avg Time (s)
+
+Single-Agent 3.1 2.6 100K 165
+
+Static Pipeline 3.5 3.2 350K 420
+
+VMAO (Ours) 4.2 4.1 850K 900
+
+over speed. These parameters are configurable for deployments requiring faster responses or lower
+
+costs.
+
+Evaluation Limitations. We acknowledge three caveats: (1) 25 queries is a modest evaluation set
+
+without reported confidence intervals, (2) the LLM judge (Opus 4.5) belongs to the same model family
+
+as the execution model (Sonnet 4.5), potentially introducing shared biases despite human review, and
+
+(3) the Static Pipeline baseline tests verification and replanning jointly without a component-level
+
+ablation. We view the current evaluation as a meaningful signal of the framework’s potential, while
+
+acknowledging that larger-scale evaluation with independent judges would strengthen the conclusions.
+
+6 DISCUSSION
+
+Unlike skill-based systems (e.g., AutoGPT plugins) that invoke capabilities sequentially within a
+
+single agent, VMAO offers explicit DAG decomposition for interpretable plans, parallel execution re-
+
+ducing latency, verification-driven iteration for progressive refinement, and cross-agent synthesis with
+
+source attribution. The LLM-based verification serves as a principled coordination signal—assessing
+
+whether collective results satisfy the query—decoupling coordination from agent implementation.
+
+When Does Verification Help Most? The largest gains from verification-driven replanning appear
+
+on open-ended, multi-dimensional queries (Strategic Assessment: +53% completeness) where initial
+
+decomposition inevitably misses relevant aspects. For narrower queries with well-defined data sources
+
+(Performance Analysis), single agents already locate most relevant information, and the marginal
+
+benefit of replanning is smaller. This suggests verification is most valuable when the query space
+
+is difficult to fully characterize upfront—precisely the setting where static pipelines fail. We also
+
+observe that the majority of replanning actions are retries of incomplete sub-questions rather than
+
+introduction of entirely new ones, indicating that agent execution variance (tool failures, insufficient
+
+search results) is a larger contributor to gaps than poor initial decomposition.
+
+7
+
+### Page 8
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+Limitations. Our framework has several limitations beyond the evaluation caveats noted in Sec-
+
+tion 5.3. LLM-based verification may miss subtle factual errors or hallucinations, as it evaluates
+
+completeness rather than accuracy—the verifier can confirm that a claim is present and sourced, but
+
+cannot independently establish its truth. Poor query decomposition can propagate errors downstream:
+
+if the planner misframes a sub-question, the verifier may accept a well-sourced but irrelevant answer.
+
+The system’s 8.5× token cost relative to a single agent (850K vs. 100K tokens) may be prohibitive
+
+for latency-sensitive or cost-constrained settings. Finally, all experiments use a single model family
+
+(Claude); the framework’s effectiveness with other LLM families remains untested.
+
+Transferability and Future Work. The core components—DAG decomposition, verification, and
+
+replanning—are domain-agnostic and should transfer to domains like legal discovery or scientific
+
+literature review with appropriate agent and tool configuration. Future directions include learning-
+
+based stop conditions trained on execution traces, component-level ablation studies to isolate the
+
+contribution of each framework element, evaluation with diverse model families, and human-in-the-
+
+loop verification for high-stakes queries.
+
+7 CONCLUSION
+
+We presented VMAO, a framework that coordinates specialized LLM agents through a Plan-Execute-
+
+Verify-Replan loop. On 25 market research queries, VMAO improves answer completeness from 3.1
+
+to 4.2 and source quality from 2.6 to 4.1 (1–5 scale) compared to single-agent baselines, with the
+
+largest gains on open-ended queries that require multi-dimensional synthesis. Our results suggest
+
+that orchestration-level verification—where an independent model evaluates whether collective agent
+
+results satisfy the original query—is an effective coordination mechanism for multi-agent systems.
+
+Key open questions remain around component-level contributions, generalization across model
+
+families and domains, and scalable evaluation methodology. We will release the implementation
+
+upon publication.
+
+REFERENCES
+
+Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving
+
+factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Forty-first International
+
+Conference on Machine Learning, 2023.
+
+Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao
+
+Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for
+
+a multi-agent collaborative framework. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning
+
+Representations, 2024.
+
+Guohao Li, Hasan Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. Camel: Com-
+
+municative agents for” mind” exploration of large language model society. Advances in Neural
+
+Information Processing Systems, 36:51991–52008, 2023.
+
+Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri
+
+Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement
+
+with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46534–46594, 2023.
+
+OpenAI. Introducing deep research. OpenAI Blog, 2025. URL https://openai.com/index/
+
+introducing-deep-research/.
+
+Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru
+
+Tang, Bill Qian, et al. Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world
+
+apis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16789, 2023.
+
+Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dess`ı, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke
+
+Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach
+
+themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539–68551,
+
+2023.
+
+8
+
+### Page 9
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. Hugginggpt:
+
+Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in hugging face. Advances in Neural Information
+
+Processing Systems, 36:38154–38180, 2023.
+
+Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion:
+
+Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing
+
+Systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023.
+
+Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai
+
+Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.
+
+Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024.
+
+Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdh-
+
+ery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.
+
+arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022.
+
+Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny
+
+Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in
+
+neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022.
+
+Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang,
+
+Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent
+
+conversations. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024.
+
+Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe
+
+Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents:
+
+A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864, 2023.
+
+Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan.
+
+Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural
+
+information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023a.
+
+Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao.
+
+React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The eleventh international
+
+conference on learning representations, 2023b.
+
+Denny Zhou, Nathanael Sch¨arli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans,
+
+Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning
+
+in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations,
+
+2023.
+
+A PROMPT TEMPLATES
+
+We provide simplified versions of the core prompts. Each follows a structured format with input
+
+specifications, decision rules, and JSON output schemas.
+
+Planning Prompt
+
+You are a query planner. Decompose complex queries into sub-questions for specialized agents.
+
+Input: Original query, conversation context, available agents
+
+Planning Rules:
+
+– RAG First: Always search internal knowledge base first or in parallel
+
+– Maximize Parallelism: Execute independent questions simultaneously
+
+– Minimize Dependencies: Only when results feed into other questions
+
+– Be Specific: Clear, answerable scope for each question
+
+Sub-question Fields: id, question, agent type, dependencies, priority, context from deps, verifica-
+
+tion criteria
+
+Output: JSON with sub questions array and explanation
+
+9
+
+### Page 10
+
+Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026 Workshop on MALGAI
+
+Verification Prompt
+
+Verify if the sub-question has been adequately answered with proper metadata.
+
+Input: Sub-question, verification criteria, result, dependency results
+
+Evaluation Criteria:
+
+– Completeness: All aspects of question addressed?
+
+– Evidence Quality: Multiple sources? Cross-referenced?
+
+– Metadata: Source attribution (filename/URL/date) present?
+
+– Specificity: Concrete facts/numbers vs vague claims?
+
+– Contradictions: Conflicts between sources?
+
+Output: JSON with verification status (complete/partial/incomplete), completeness score (0–1),
+
+missing aspects, confidence, recommendation (accept/retry/escalate)
+
+Replanning Prompt
+
+Determine next actions based on verification results.
+
+Input: Original query, execution plan, completed/incomplete results, iteration count
+
+Critical Rule: MUST include ALL incomplete sub-question IDs in retry list.
+
+Decision Logic:
+
+– completeness > 0.8: Proceed to synthesis (done)
+
+– Incomplete results exist: Add ALL to retry sub questions
+
+– completeness 0.5–0.8: Add new sub questions to fill gaps
+
+– Contradictions found: Add queries targeting different sources
+
+– iterations ≥ max: Return empty lists (done)
+
+Output: JSON with retry sub questions, new sub questions, explanation
+
+Synthesis Prompt
+
+Synthesize results from multiple agents into a concise, well-cited answer.
+
+Input: Original query, sub-question results, verification summary
+
+Required Structure:
+
+1. Executive Summary (2–3 sentences with key metrics)
+
+2. Key Findings (5–8 bullets with source citations)
+
+3. Analysis (2–3 paragraphs connecting insights)
+
+4. Conclusions (confidence level and limitations)
+
+Citation Format: [source - section/URL, metadata]
+
+Output: JSON with answer, key findings, confidence, sources, gaps
+
+B CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS
+
+Table 5 lists the default configuration parameters used in our experiments. These can be tuned for
+
+different quality-latency tradeoffs.
+
+Table 5: Configuration parameters for VMAO orchestration
+
+Parameter Default Description
+
+max iterations 3 Maximum replanning iterations
+
+token budget 1M Maximum tokens before stopping
+
+ready threshold 0.8 Completeness ratio for synthesis
+
+high confidence 0.75 Confidence threshold for early stop
+
+diminishing returns 0.05 Minimum improvement to continue
+
+max concurrent 3 Parallel agent executions
+
+agent timeout 600s Per-agent timeout
+
+10