Large Language Models (LLMs) function as the intelligent core of individual agents. A primary challenge involves organizing these agents into a cohesive and effective system. The architecture of a Multi-Agent System (MAS) dictates how agents interact, share information, and collaborate to achieve broader objectives. Selecting an appropriate architectural framework is not merely a technical choice; it profoundly influences the system's scalability, resilience, complexity, and the kinds of problems it can effectively address.
LLM-based multi-agent systems, while benefiting from the advanced capabilities of LLMs, also inherit challenges related to managing distributed intelligence, ensuring coherent collective behavior, and optimizing resource utilization (such as API calls and token limits). The frameworks we discuss provide established patterns to structure these complex interactions.
Several architectural patterns have emerged from traditional MAS research and are being adapted for LLM-based systems. Understanding these patterns will provide a solid foundation for designing your own multi-agent applications.
The most fundamental distinction in MAS architecture is whether control and communication are centralized or decentralized.
In a centralized, or coordinator, architecture, a special agent or module, often called an orchestrator or manager, assumes primary responsibility for task decomposition, assignment, communication routing, and result aggregation. Other agents, sometimes termed worker agents, report to and receive instructions from this central coordinator.
A coordinator agent directs tasks to worker agents and collects their results.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
This pattern is often a good starting point for simpler MAS or when a clear, top-down control structure is beneficial. For LLM agents, the coordinator might handle complex prompt chaining or manage the flow of information between specialized LLM agents.
Decentralized, or peer-to-peer, architectures lack a central authority. Agents communicate directly with one another, negotiating tasks, sharing information, and coordinating their actions autonomously.
Agents in a peer-to-peer architecture interact directly without a central intermediary.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
P2P architectures are suited for scenarios requiring high resilience, dynamic environments, or where individual agent autonomy is essential. For LLMs, this could involve agents specializing in different knowledge domains collaboratively building a complex report.
Hierarchical architectures organize agents into a tree-like structure with varying levels of authority and responsibility. Manager agents at higher levels decompose complex tasks and delegate sub-tasks to subordinate agents or teams of agents at lower levels.
A hierarchical structure with manager agents overseeing sub-managers or worker agents.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
This structure is common in LLM agent teams where, for example, a "Project Manager" LLM agent might oversee a "Research" LLM agent and a "Writer" LLM agent, which in turn might consult other specialized tool-using agents.
A blackboard architecture facilitates indirect communication and coordination among agents through a shared data repository, known as the blackboard. Agents do not communicate directly with each other; instead, they read from and write information to the blackboard. Specialized agents can monitor the blackboard for specific types of information or events that trigger their actions.
Agents interact by reading from and writing to a central blackboard, which holds shared problem-solving data.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Blackboard systems are useful when problem-solving is incremental and involves diverse sources of knowledge or expertise. For LLM agents, the blackboard could store evolving drafts of a document, hypotheses about a problem, or a shared understanding of a complex situation, with different LLMs contributing refinements or new insights.
In practice, many multi-agent LLM systems employ hybrid architectures, combining elements from several patterns. For instance, a system might feature a hierarchical structure for overall task management, but within each sub-team, agents might communicate in a peer-to-peer fashion or utilize a local blackboard. This approach allows designers to leverage the strengths of different patterns while mitigating their weaknesses, tailoring the architecture to the specific needs of the application.
When designing an LLM-based MAS, consider these factors in selecting or composing an architectural framework:
While the patterns discussed are high-level blueprints, several software frameworks and libraries aim to simplify the development of multi-agent LLM systems. These tools often provide implementations for agent communication, state management, and sometimes pre-defined agent roles or team structures. Examples include:
These frameworks often implicitly or explicitly guide developers towards specific architectural patterns. For example, CrewAI naturally lends itself to a form of coordinated or hierarchical structure with defined roles and a process. AutoGen's conversational agents can be configured for various interaction patterns, from simple pairs to more complex group discussions.
Understanding the fundamental architectural patterns allows you to make informed decisions when selecting a framework or when building a custom system from scratch. It also helps in evaluating the suitability of a chosen framework for your specific problem domain and scalability requirements.
The choice of architecture is not a one-time decision. As your system evolves and requirements change, you may need to refactor or adapt your architecture. A solid understanding of these foundational patterns provides the vocabulary and an analytical lens to design, evaluate, and evolve sophisticated multi-agent LLM systems. This architectural underpinning is essential before we explore the specifics of how individual agents within these systems achieve autonomy and exhibit desired behaviors.
Was this section helpful?
© 2026 ApX Machine LearningEngineered with