COVER: Identifiable Evaluation of Coalition Routing

When a multi-agent system changes its team, it also changes the messages and final answer it produces, so an end-to-end accuracy gap does not by itself identify a routing effect. We introduce method, an evaluation contract that fixes a public information boundary, downstream stack G, and finite legal team family before outcomes are generated. Complete coverage identifies exact finite-benchmark oracle regret conditional on that stack. For any finite collection of frozen policies, executing the union of their distinct selected teams is the minimal assumption-free support for every pairwise policy contrast, though not for absolute oracle regret. Two controlled tables with source-ID-disjoint splits test the instrument. On MuSiQue-12, a pre-specified privileged positive control improves regret from 0.532 to 0.402; a later public-interface control reaches 0.424 versus 0.554 but is retrospective. On HotpotQA-4, a pre-specified public direct scorer improves regret from 0.313 to 0.110. In fixed-stack Llama execution, verified route regret improves by 0.190, while the raw-answer gain is 0.010 with an interval crossing zero. A five-family ToolSandbox variant-shift validation exhaustively evaluates 16 declared teams on 14 untouched task variants (224/224 valid rows): the declared-family oracle reaches 0.768 safe-evidence completion, while the prospectively frozen router gets 0.637 (regret 0.131), failing the predeclared 0.10 criterion. A later retrospective comparator reaches 0.655, matching all-workers with 4.57 versus 5.00 workers on average. Thus COVER exposes selection headroom without manufacturing a routing win. A crossed-stack diagnostic shows absolute scores depend on G but finds no detectable router-by-finalizer interaction. COVER is an auditable measurement methodology, not a claim of stack-invariant or universal agent-routing superiority.

SLMs as Multi-Agent Routers: A Progressive SFT and Reinforcement Learning Approach

Specialised retrieval agents typically surface higher quality results than general-purpose search, but selecting the optimal agent for a given query remains an open problem. Current approaches route queries based on inferred topic or intent, however intent-based selection is fundamentally limited: it does not incorporate signal from retrieved content, and cannot detect when a topically aligned agent produces low-relevance results. We address this by training a small language model via supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning to jointly perform agent selection and structured parameter generation for downstream tool calls, using a hierarchical reward function grounded in retrieval relevance along with query-agent topic alignment. This enables the model to learn task-dependent agent suitability from retrieval performance: which agents reliably yield high-relevance results for which query distributions, and when to redirect queries away from specialised agents despite surface-level topical overlap. On a targeted subset of such agent-query mismatches, the trained model achieves an NDCG@10 of 0.918 compared to 0.539 and 0.490 for two LLM baselines (Amazon Nova Lite and Claude Haiku 4.5) that route on intent alone. Overall, it achieves a mean NDCG@10 of 0.771 (+0.177 over Nova Lite, +0.219 over Haiku) with a mean selection latency of 120.1ms, an 82.4% reduction over Nova Lite.

Multi-Agent Routing as Set-Valued Prediction: A WildChat Benchmark and Cost-Aware Evaluation

Tool and agent routing from natural-language prompts is naturally a set-valued prediction problem: a single query may require multiple agents, while over-selection increases execution cost. The benchmark introduced here is derived from WildChat and contains 3,000 prompts over a fixed 12-agent catalog, with AI-assisted heuristic labels under a fixed schema and controlled rebalancing for multi-label evaluation. The evaluation protocol combines set-level metrics (Precision, Recall, F1, Jaccard, and Exact Match), latency, an execution-oriented capability-coverage simulation, and a constrained weighted-routing setting based on ordinal agent-cost tiers. Compared methods include nearest-neighbor matching, linear multilabel classification, dependency-aware baselines, a fine-tuned encoder, deterministic weighted post-scoring via Weighted Agent Routing (WAR), and a zero-shot LLM baseline. Results show that supervised routers substantially outperform nearest-neighbor and zero-shot LLM routing. The fine-tuned encoder achieves the strongest unconstrained set accuracy, while the linear multilabel model provides the strongest practical baseline. In the constrained setting, the weighted routing layer improves utility when applied on top of strong supervised scorers, with the largest gain observed for Encoder+WAR. Overall, the benchmark and evaluation protocol support reproducible study of accuracy-cost trade-offs in fixed-catalog multi-agent routing.