How Much Does Correctness Cost? Budgeted Placement of Strong Correctors in a Weak Multi-Agent Swarm
TL;DR
This work models a cheap swarm of unreliable agents as a consensus on a graph in which each oracle pins one node toward the truth at a cost-coupled, concave strength, and measures quality by the coherence H(R)=tr M(R)^{-1}.
Abstract
A cheap swarm of unreliable agents can be steered to a correct consensus by a few strong, expensive"oracle"correctors. We ask how much one must spend, and where to place the oracles. We model the swarm as a consensus on a graph in which each oracle pins one node toward the truth at a cost-coupled, concave strength, and measure quality by the coherence H(R)=tr M(R)^{-1}. Our first result is that H stays submodular (each added oracle helps less than the last) even when the oracles differ in strength, so a cost-benefit greedy comes within 1-1/e of the best placement at any budget. Inverting the budget gives the budget-correctness frontier B*(eps), the least spend that guarantees an eps-correct consensus: closed-form on the complete graph, and a minimal oracle count k* when oracles cost the same. Whether a budget then buys a few strong oracles or many medium onese curvature of the cost-quality law: diminishing returns favour spreadsharply increasion. Measured onthe Qwen3 ladder (0.6-32B), the law is concave for math verificatio convex foremergent code tracing, so the verdict is genuinely task-dependent.https://github.com/YehudaItkin/budgeted-oracle-placemen