Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

BudgetMLAgent: A Cost-Effective LLM Multi-Agent system for Automating Machine Learning Tasks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.07464 v2 pith:I56VINPQ submitted 2024-11-12 cs.MA cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.MAcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords systemtasksgpt-4modelssingle-agentask-the-expertaveragedcalls
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in diverse applications including generation of code snippets, but often struggle with generating code for complex Machine Learning (ML) tasks. Although existing LLM single-agent based systems give varying performance depending on the task complexity, they purely rely on larger and expensive models such as GPT-4. Our investigation reveals that no-cost and low-cost models such as Gemini-Pro, Mixtral and CodeLlama perform far worse than GPT-4 in a single-agent setting. With the motivation of developing a cost-efficient LLM based solution for solving ML tasks, we propose an LLM Multi-Agent based system which leverages combination of experts using profiling, efficient retrieval of past observations, LLM cascades, and ask-the-expert calls. Through empirical analysis on ML engineering tasks in the MLAgentBench benchmark, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our system, using no-cost models, namely Gemini as the base LLM, paired with GPT-4 in cascade and expert to serve occasional ask-the-expert calls for planning. With 94.2\% reduction in the cost (from \$0.931 per run cost averaged over all tasks for GPT-4 single agent system to \$0.054), our system is able to yield better average success rate of 32.95\% as compared to GPT-4 single-agent system yielding 22.72\% success rate averaged over all the tasks of MLAgentBench.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Is Inter-Seed Cross-Play Enough? Evaluating the Robustness of Zero-Shot Coordination Algorithms to Implementation Details

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For Other-Play in Yokai, agents trained with different implementation details coordinate across implementations about as well as across seeds, supporting inter-seed cross-play as a proxy for cross-implementation evaluation.

  2. Cost and Accuracy of Long-Term Memory in Distributed Multi-Agent Systems Based on Large Language Models

    cs.IR 2026-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A two-framework testbed comparison claims mem0 is Pareto-optimal over Graphiti for distributed LLM agents because its lower cost is paired with accuracy that is not significantly different.

  3. Toward Efficient Agents: Memory, Tool learning, and Planning

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes efficiency techniques for LLM agents into memory, tool learning, and planning, and consolidates benchmarks and metrics for measuring cost-performance trade-offs.

Pith tools