Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems

• Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems are comprised of diverse agents with varying physical embodiments, sensing modalities, and internal dynamics that enable solutions unattainable by homogeneous groups.
• They employ formal models and hierarchical architectures to manage complex task decomposition, coordination, and adaptive role assignment in cyber-physical and simulation environments.
• Recent advances integrate LLM-driven strategies and decentralized learning protocols to enhance synchronization, consensus, and distributed optimization across agent networks.

Heterogeneous multi-agent systems (HMAS) are systems comprised of multiple agents with distinct embodiments, capabilities, or internal dynamics operating within a shared environment toward individual or global objectives. Heterogeneity may arise in physical embodiment (e.g., manipulators vs. mobile bases), sensing modalities, computation and communication resources, behavioral policies, or underlying mathematical models. HMAS enable solutions to tasks that are intractable or inefficient for homogeneous collectives, such as cross-domain task decomposition, embodiment-aware coordination, or multi-role workflow execution. The study of HMAS spans domains from robotics, distributed optimization, and simulation to large-scale artificial intelligence and cyber-physical integration.

1. Formal Modeling and Defining Heterogeneity

Heterogeneity in multi-agent systems is characterized by agents that differ in one or more of the following: physical embodiment, perception or manipulation capability, action and observation spaces, internal dynamics, knowledge bases, or behavioral policies. A unified formalism often models an HMAS as a tuple comprising:

• A set of agents $\mathcal{A} = \{ A_1, \ldots, A_N \}$,
• State spaces $S_i$ (distinct for each agent),
• Action spaces $\text{Act}_i$ per agent,
• Perception mappings $$\text{Percept}_i : \text{Env} \times \mathbb{R}_+ \to \text{Obs}_i$$,
• Coupling topology or communication graph $\mathcal{G}$,
• Agent-specific capabilities $C_i = \{c_{i,1}, \ldots, c_{i,k_i}\}$,
• Possibly, agent types $\Delta$ and type mapping $\mathrm{Type}(A_i) \in \Delta$.

In cyber-physical settings, e.g., robot teams or human-robot-software collectives, heterogeneity extends to embodiment—agents may possess diverse locomotion schemes, manipulation workspaces, perception frusta, or even energy management subsystems (Chen et al., 2024, Lahlouhi, 2014).

Distinct approaches to HMAS modeling reflect the operational domain:

• Robotic and cyber-physical HMAS: Heterogeneity is often embodied in a capability vector or resume summarizing the agent's actionable mobility, perception, and manipulation subspaces (Chen et al., 2024).
• Simulation and virtual HMAS: Agents may represent humans, vehicles, animals, or software processes. The state-update and coupling functions differ per type (Ren et al., 2018, Lahlouhi, 2014).
• Distributed computation and AI: Heterogeneity arises in agent optimization capabilities, update protocols, or behavioral policies, further encoded into type maps or hyper-network parameterizations (Li et al., 2022, Fu et al., 2022).

2. Hierarchical and Embodiment-Aware Architectures

Advanced HMAS frameworks increasingly embrace hierarchy and embodiment awareness to tackle the combinatorial complexity induced by agent diversity. The EMOS architecture (Chen et al., 2024) exemplifies a two-level hierarchy:

1. Global planning (Centralized Group Discussion): A central LLM-based planner decomposes complex objectives into subtasks, leveraging agent resumes to form feasible plans respecting agents' mobility, manipulation, and perception limitations. Embodiment constraints are enforced by agent self-reflection (e.g., reachability via forward-kinematics queries).
2. Local decentralized execution: Each agent asynchronously executes its assigned subtasks, invokes low-level actions, and manages policy updates based on local observations and execution results. Roles are dynamically assigned based on the agent's resume rather than static designations.

This approach enables emergent workflow decomposition, as roles flexibly adapt to both the physical structure and functional capability of each agent, supporting tasks such as multi-floor navigation, cooperative perception, and cross-embodiment object rearrangement.

The formalization of agent embodiment as a vector $c_i = [mobility_i, perception_i, manipulation_i]$—where, for example, $manipulation_i$ is quantified via a convex hull of reachable poses—permits capability-constraint matching in both planning and execution.

3. Consensus, Synchronization, and Emergent Dynamics

Synchronization and consensus in HMAS present unique challenges: perfect agreement is unattainable without homogeneity in dynamics, yet strong coupling produces approximate or emergent consensus. Theoretical advances include:

• Blended (Averaged) Dynamics: Strong diffusive coupling in networks of heterogeneous agents leads to convergence toward the solution of a blended or average dynamics model

$\dot{s} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N f_i(s,t)$

where $f_i$ encodes each agent's vector field. Plug-and-play and initialization-free operation are guaranteed provided the blended model is contractive or admits a stable attractor (Lee et al., 2018, Lee et al., 2021, Shim et al., 31 Aug 2025).

• Funnel Coupling and Prescribed Transients: Node-wise nonlinear coupling laws permit agents to achieve synchronization within arbitrarily prescribed error bounds, enabling high-precision coordination by local controller design (Lee et al., 2020).
• Weak Synchronization: When the communication topology precludes classical consensus (e.g., due to absence of a spanning tree), weaker notions such as vanishing exchanged signals $\zeta_i = \sum_j a_{ij}(y_i - y_j) \to 0$ hold. Dynamic clustering emerges, with intra-component synchronization and inter-cluster convex averages (Stoorvogel et al., 2024).
• Parameter adaptation: Adaptive laws leveraging only the consensus current drive agent parameters to converge, yielding asymptotic homogeneity and eventual exact consensus even from heterogeneous initial dynamics (Shim et al., 31 Aug 2025).

These frameworks underpin robust, scalable distributed control and optimization algorithms in HMAS.

4. Coordination, Task Planning, and Development Methodologies

HMAS necessitate sophisticated approaches for role assignment, task allocation, and workflow execution that respect agent heterogeneity:

• Role and Organization Formalism: Agents (robots, humans, software) are cast as autonomous actors with defined state, action, and percept spaces. Organizational structures (roles, communication topologies) and goals (e.g., global manufacturing tasks) are modeled, often via Colored Petri Nets, allowing for explicit workflow extraction and role-to-agent mapping (Lahlouhi, 2014).
• Automata-Based Planning: Capabilities and constraints are encoded compositionally via finite automata (including NFA with $\epsilon$-transitions), composing global system models through set operations (union, subtraction, concatenation). Task planning reduces to shortest-path search in the state-transition space, permitting optimal/heuristic solutions with explicit handling of failure modes and reconfiguration (Tziola et al., 2022).
• Reactive Synthesis: Temporal-logic-based controller synthesis (e.g., via GR(1) LTL specifications) yields correct-by-construction controllers respecting heterogeneous environmental interactions and dynamic capability resolution (Cao et al., 2022).
• Scalable MASA-Method: Multi-agent development methodologies proceed via analysis (organizational design and role definition), design (agent derivation from global objectives), and implementation (code realization with interface agents for physical/human agents), supporting modular, extensible system construction (Lahlouhi, 2014).

Case studies from manufacturing, logistics, and multi-robot conflict resolution underscore the necessity of explicit capability, constraint, and failure-mode modeling in real-world HMAS deployments.

5. Learning, Optimization, and Decision-Making in HMAS

Modern HMAS increasingly exploit learning and optimization paradigms that explicitly account for heterogeneity:

• Decentralized MARL with Intrinsic Motivation: Algorithms such as CoHet introduce GNN-driven intrinsic rewards, enabling fully decentralized policy learning amid agent heterogeneity, partial observability, and reward sparsity. Agents learn dense, self-supervised coordination signals by aligning their local dynamics models with neighbors’ predictions, handling divergence in both capabilities and dynamics (Monon et al., 2024).
• League-Based Cooperative Policy Robustification: Heterogeneous League Training (HLT) maintains a pool of past policies and hyper-networks to adapt policy representations to teammate variability and support policy version compatibility in multi-type agent training (Fu et al., 2022).
• Heterogeneous Distributed Optimization: The HIPPO protocol leverages agent-dependent update rules, allowing each agent to perform first-order or Newton updates commensurate with local resources, yielding globally convergent optimization with explicit communication–computation trade-offs in agent-diverse networks (Li et al., 2022).

Optimization-based simulation engines, such as Heter-Sim, enable interactive, data-driven simulation of large heterogeneous collectives (e.g., pedestrians and vehicles), parameterizing both agent dynamics and intra-agent constraints to produce physically plausible, high-fidelity behavior (Ren et al., 2018).

6. LLM-Based HMAS and Advanced Collaboration Paradigms

Recent developments have extended HMAS frameworks to AI-native settings, notably LLM-driven agent collectives:

• Heterogeneous LLM-driven MAS: X-MAS demonstrates that assigning distinct LLMs to specialized agent roles (e.g., reasoning, QA, revision, aggregation), chosen per task and domain, yields substantial gains in task accuracy over homogeneous setups. Empirical studies across mathematics, coding, science, medicine, and finance show that performance improvements of 8–47% are typical, with gains scaling with model diversity (Ye et al., 22 May 2025).
• Edge-Level Heterogeneous Collaboration: The SC-MAS framework models MAS as directed graphs with edge-level collaboration strategies (e.g., chain, debate, criticism), and agent-level LLM allocation. The framework enables cost–performance optimization, yielding up to 3.5% absolute accuracy gains at 12–15% cost reduction versus homogeneous or single-collaboration-mode baselines (Zhao et al., 14 Jan 2026).
• Embodiment- and capability-aware reasoning: The introduction of LLM-mediated robot resumes and hierarchical planning demonstrates that capability–awareness is essential for automated task allocation and efficient multi-agent division-of-labor (Chen et al., 2024).

These architectures depend on formal MAS modeling with explicit articulation of agent capabilities, collaboration strategies, and cross-role communication protocols to enable scalable, adaptive, and cost-efficient intelligence.

7. Applications, Benchmarks, and Open Challenges

HMAS are deployed in a diverse array of domains:

• Physical robotics: Real-world systems demonstrate seamless collaboration among UAVs, ground robots, and human operators, using RTK-GPS-enabled, ROS 2–based architectures for robust, namespace-centric integration and efficient spatial awareness (Saint-Jore et al., 2023).
• Simulation: Interactive crowd, traffic, and multi-modal agent simulations provide quantitative and qualitative validation in VR and desktop environments (Ren et al., 2018).
• Task-oriented benchmarks: The Habitat-MAS, X-MAS-Bench, and other environments evaluate embodiment-aware reasoning, cooperative multi-floor rearrangement, and function–domain assignment for LLM-driven MAS (Chen et al., 2024, Ye et al., 22 May 2025).
• Distributed computation and optimization: Plug-and-play, initialization-free operation is achieved via blended dynamics in tasks such as distributed estimation, consensus, and optimization (Lee et al., 2018, Lee et al., 2021, Shim et al., 31 Aug 2025).

Open challenges persist in scalability (esp. communication/computation bottlenecks for large N), robust policy transfer and version compatibility, online adaptation to agent failure or damage, and interpretable assignment of roles and collaboration protocols. Future HMAS research will likely expand further into dynamic, context-aware collaboration paradigms, cost–performance adaptive design, and integration of noisy, real-world sensors and physical processes.

---

Key References

• Embodiment-aware HMAS and robot resumes: (Chen et al., 2024)
• LLM-driven heterogeneous MAS and benchmarks: (Ye et al., 22 May 2025, Zhao et al., 14 Jan 2026)
• Data-driven optimization and simulation: (Ren et al., 2018)
• Organizational and agent modeling: (Lahlouhi, 2014)
• Learning and adaptation: (Fu et al., 2022, Monon et al., 2024, Li et al., 2022, Shim et al., 31 Aug 2025)
• Synchronization, consensus, plug-and-play design: (Lee et al., 2020, Stoorvogel et al., 2024, Lee et al., 2018, Lee et al., 2021)
• Task planning and automata-based synthesis: (Tziola et al., 2022)
• Physical and cyber-physical systems integration: (Saint-Jore et al., 2023, Cao et al., 2022)