Efficiency is increasingly important for Large Language Model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS), as larger models and more agents introduce substantial execution costs. Recent methods aim to make MAS cheaper by pruning agents, removing communication edges, or searching for compact structures. However, we argue that existing evaluations may overestimate their true ability to improve MAS efficiency. Reported gains are often measured under method-specific prompts and starting topologies, making them difficult to attribute to the proposed structural changes. Moreover, many reported successes appear in non-MAS-demanding settings, where a single agent or a randomly pruned system can already preserve strong performance. To study these issues, we introduce a controlled and MAS-demanding diagnostic benchmark for representative MAS efficiency methods. We evaluate methods under a shared backbone model, agent registry, and runtime, across controlled variations in topology, scale, depth, and tool use. Our analysis shows that many reported gains are setup-dependent and may arise from structural collapse, disabled tool pathways, or starting systems where random pruning already preserves accuracy, rather than robust improvements in MAS efficiency.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted across real-world applications, yet traditional evaluations rely on expensive, domain-specific ground-truth labels that are often unavailable or infeasible. We introduce a ground-truth-free evaluation framework focused on reasoning consistency and instruction following, shifting the emphasis from correctness—which is elusive without labels—to transparent, coherent, evidence-based reasoning. Each model response must include a direct answer, a structured multi-step explanation, and supporting evidence, all assessed via semantic similarity and output adherence checks. We further propose TopK-ReRank, which refines rankings by constructing a consensus answer from the most reliable models, reducing ambiguity across diverse reasoning styles. Experiments show that our framework outperforms existing label-free methods, including majority voting, triplet ranking, and peer-review approaches, providing a more interpretable and efficient alternative for evaluating LLMs in the absence of ground-truth labels.