A Multi-AI Agent System for Autonomous Optimization of Agentic AI Solutions via Iterative Refinement and LLM-Driven Feedback Loops

Hassan Sawaf; Kamer Ali Yuksel

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Multi-AI Agent System for Autonomous Optimization of Agentic AI Solutions via Iterative Refinement and LLM-Driven Feedback Loops

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A loop of AI agents can autonomously refine other agentic AI systems, the authors claim, with case-study gains on every task.

desk verdict A working engineering demo whose evidence is circular and whose algorithm breaks after the first success; the reported gains are the evaluator's own scores. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17149 v1 pith:O7MFJVP3 submitted 2024-12-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.ETcs.MAcs.NE

Kamer Ali Yuksel , Hassan Sawaf This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.ETcs.MAcs.NE

keywords agenticAIautonomousoptimizationLLM-drivenfeedbackloopsiterativerefinementmulti-agentsystemsevolutionaryalgorithmLlama3.2qualitativeevaluation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a fully autonomous loop of AI agents can optimize other agentic AI systems without human intervention. The loop generates hypotheses from an LLM's evaluation of the current output, modifies the agent code, re-runs it, and keeps the variant with the highest score, repeating until improvement falls below a threshold. The authors report nine case studies in domains from market research to medical AI architecting, claiming notable gains in clarity, relevance, depth, and actionability for every evolved system. If true, this would replace manual prompt and workflow tuning with an automated, domain-independent refinement process.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the refinement loop in Algorithm 1, driven by two collaborating sets of components: the Synthesis Framework (Refinement, Hypothesis Generation, and Modification agents) and the Evaluation Framework (an Evaluation Agent using Llama 3.2-3B, a Selection Agent, and a Memory Module). The Evaluation Agent assigns scores on qualitative criteria such as clarity, relevance, depth of analysis, and actionability, plus quantitative metrics; the Hypothesis Agent turns evaluative feedback into concrete code changes; the Selection Agent accepts a new variant only if its score is strictly higher than the best-known score; and the loop terminates when improvement falls below a threshold $\epsilon$.

What would settle it

Run the evolved and original agents on the same tasks and have independent human raters (or a stronger, instruction-following LLM that was not part of the loop) score the outputs blind; if the evolved outputs are not preferred at a similar or greater rate, the loop's reported improvements do not generalize beyond its own evaluator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the framework's iterative feedback loop—Evaluation, Hypothesis Generation, Modification, Execution, Selection—constitutes a general method for optimizing agentic AI solutions. Starting from a baseline code variant $C_0$, the loop scores outputs with an LLM on qualitative criteria, generates hypotheses $H_i$ for improvement, produces a new variant $C_{i+1}=M(H_i, C_{\text{best}})$, and accepts it only if its score exceeds the best-known score. The process stops when the score gain is below $\epsilon$ or a maximum iteration count is reached, and the best-known variant and output are returned. The paper claims this achieves optimal performance without human input and demonstrates significant improvements in output quality, relevance, and actionability in all case studies.

Load-bearing premise

The entire improvement signal comes from one LLM's scores on qualitative criteria, so if Llama 3.2-3B's judgments do not track genuine output quality, every reported gain could be an artifact of the evaluator's own biases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Agentic systems can be optimized end-to-end without manual prompt engineering or hand-tuned role definitions.
The same loop applies across domains, since the case studies span market research, healthcare, supply chain, career coaching, social media content, drug discovery, and education.
Evolved systems show not only higher scores but also less score variability, indicating more consistent outputs.
The framework returns the best-known variant and its output, so each iteration is safe in the sense that performance never decreases relative to the stored best.
The stopping condition based on $\epsilon$ gives a concrete rule for when to stop refining, usable in enterprise deployment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the evaluator, hypothesis generator, and selection judge are the same LLM (Llama 3.2-3B), some of the reported gains may reflect the model's preference for its own writing style rather than objective task quality; an independent evaluator would test this.
The paper's 'optimal' is relative to the predefined qualitative criteria; if those criteria miss important dimensions, the loop will optimize the wrong target, as the Limitations section concedes.
A natural extension is to use the same loop with a reward model trained on human preferences, or to combine multiple evaluators, which would make the reported gains more externally valid.
The loop is essentially a discrete hill-climbing search over code space; the choice of starting code $C_0$ and the hypothesis-generation temperature likely determine whether it escapes local optima.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The gains it reports are not independent evidence: the same Llama 3.2-3B model scores the outputs and proposes the modifications, so the evaluations are the optimizer's own objective. And the pseudocode in Algorithm 1 breaks after the first successful variant, because the stopping check compares Si+1 to Sbest after Sbest has been overwritten with Si+1. The paper's iterative-refinement claim is not actually implemented in the algorithm. To its credit, the paper ships a public archive with original and evolved agent code, outputs, and evaluation reports. The architecture is a reasonable composition of known parts: hypothesis generation, modification, execution, evaluation. The case studies are detailed, and the appendix walks through one refinement cycle concretely. The authors cite relevant prior work (ADAS, AgentInstruct, reflective tree search, reward hacking) and list limitations in Section 7. The problems are the core evidence and the algorithm. There is no external benchmark, no human evaluation, no second-model check, no control condition such as random code mutation, and no repeated runs with confidence intervals. Section 3.2 says Llama 3.2-3B does the evaluation; Algorithm 1 uses that score to accept or reject variants. Section 7 concedes the risks of LLM bias and reward hacking, but the results never address them. The algorithm's stopping rule is a real correctness bug, not a stylistic choice. The abstract's claim of 'optimal performance without human input' is not supported by the evidence. Who is this for? Practitioners might use the case studies as a template for agent tuning. Researchers should not treat the scores as evidence. It's a demo, not a validated method. I'd desk reject at a serious venue. With an independent evaluator, a baseline, and repeated runs, the framework might become publishable, but the current version doesn't get there.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-agent framework for autonomously optimizing agentic AI systems. The system comprises Refinement, Execution, Evaluation, Modification, and Documentation agents, with an LLM (Llama 3.2-3B) generating hypotheses, executing variants, scoring outputs, and selecting the best variant according to qualitative criteria. Algorithm 1 formalizes this as iterative hill-climbing on an evaluation score f. The authors report case studies in market research, medical AI architecture, career transition, outreach, LinkedIn content, meeting facilitation, lead generation, and presentation development, claiming significant improvements in output quality, relevance, and actionability. Public code and output data are posted in an anonymous repository.

Significance. If the claimed autonomous optimization were convincingly demonstrated, the framework would be relevant to the growing area of agentic AI system design. The paper's central idea---closed-loop LLM-driven refinement with specialized agents---is plausible and worth investigating, and the authors provide a useful public archive of original and evolved agent code and outputs. However, the empirical evidence as presented does not establish the claim: every reported improvement is measured by the same LLM evaluator that drives the optimization, and no external validation, control condition, or statistical analysis is provided. The paper's own limitations section (Section 7) concedes risks of bias and reward hacking that the experiments never test. The significance of the work therefore rests on an unverified and structurally circular measurement.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Algorithm 1, Section 4] The central empirical claim is undermined by circularity. The Evaluation Agent uses Llama 3.2-3B to score outputs on criteria such as clarity, relevance, depth, and actionability, and the same LLM (via the Hypothesis and Modification Agents) generates the modifications that are then accepted or rejected based on those very scores. Consequently, the improvements reported in Section 4 and Figure 8 are not independent measurements; they are comparisons of the optimizer against its own objective. To support the claim of genuine quality improvement, the authors must provide external evaluation, such as human annotation, a held-out benchmark, or a second independently designed evaluator, and ideally a control condition such as random code mutation or modifications without evaluator feedback.
[Algorithm 1, lines 21-28] There is a control-flow inconsistency in Algorithm 1. After a successful update on lines 21-26, Sbest is set to Si+1, so the stopping condition on line 27, |Si+1 - Sbest| < epsilon, evaluates to 0 < epsilon. For any positive epsilon, this is true, and the loop terminates immediately after the first accepted variant. This contradicts the paper's description of iterative refinement and means the reported 'evolved' systems may be the result of only a single accepted modification. The stopping condition needs to be corrected, for example by comparing Si+1 against the pre-update Sbest or by tracking improvement relative to the previous iteration's score.
[Section 4.8, Figure 8] The evaluation results are reported as single scores without repeated runs, confidence intervals, or measures of variance. Agentic system evolution is stochastic: different random seeds, LLM sampling temperatures, and initial conditions would produce different trajectories. The claim of 'consistent improvements' in Section 4.8 cannot be supported by one run per case study. The authors should report multiple independent runs and appropriate summary statistics, and ideally perform a significance test against a baseline such as random or fixed modifications.
[Section 7] The Limitations section explicitly acknowledges that using LLMs for feedback, hypothesis generation, and evaluation 'may lead to inaccuracies, lack of explainability, and biases' and that poor criteria can result in suboptimal refinements. These caveats apply directly to the reported case studies, yet no experiment in the paper tests for evaluator bias, reward hacking, or sensitivity to the choice of criteria. The discussion of Section 7 should be connected to the results: at minimum, the paper should state that all reported scores are self-evaluations and therefore do not provide evidence of external validity.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 4] The abstract and case studies use the phrase 'significant improvements' without statistical significance testing; the wording should be qualified as 'score improvements according to the framework's evaluator.'
[Appendix A.4] The comparison report in Appendix A.4 treats breadth (e.g., identifying seven markets versus two) as self-evidently better without evidence that the additional markets are correctly identified or relevant; a qualitative breadth argument is not a substitute for accuracy evaluation.
[Figure 8] The caption describes 'each pair of bars' while the text refers to box plots; the figure and its caption should be made consistent.
[References] Several references, including Johnson and Liu (2023), Pan and Zhang (2024), and Miller et al. (2024), lack full bibliographic details and could not be easily verified; the authors should complete and check these entries.
[Section 3.1] The phrase 'Synthesis Framework framework' contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The reported 'improvements' are the optimizer's own objective: the same Llama 3.2-3B evaluation score f is used both to select variants and as the evidence of quality, so the gains are guaranteed by construction rather than independently measured.

self definitional [Section 3.3 (Refinement Process); Section 3.2 (Evaluation Framework); Algorithm 1 lines 20-24; Section 4.8 (Evaluation Results)]
"The new output is evaluated using the same evaluation function f (OC, criteria), yielding a new score Si+1 = f (OCi+1, criteria). If the new score Si+1 is greater than the best-known score Sbest = max(Si+1, Sbest), the new variant is considered superior. ... The Evaluation Agent employs Llama 3.2-3B to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the system’s performance. ... The evolved systems achieve markedly higher scores across all case studies."

Acceptance of a variant is defined by an increase in the LLM evaluation score f, and the case-study evidence consists of those same f scores. An accepted variant is guaranteed to have a higher f by the selection rule (Algorithm 1: 'if Si+1 > Sbest'), so the claimed 'significant improvements in output quality, relevance, and actionability' are restatements of the optimization objective, not independent measurements. No external ground truth, human evaluation, or second-model check is provided, and Section 7 concedes that LLM-based evaluation 'may lead to inaccuracies, lack of explainability, and biases' without testing or controlling for this effect. 'Optimal performance' is likewise defined as the maximum of the internal f.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: baseline output -> LLM evaluation f -> hypothesis generation -> new variant -> f -> accept if higher -> report f increases. The central empirical claim, 'significant improvements,' is therefore the very quantity being optimized; this is circular as validation because the selection rule ensures the reported direction of change. I did not find self-citation circularity: the cited prior works are external and not load-bearing in a way that forces the conclusions. Separately, Algorithm 1 has an internal control-flow inconsistency: after a successful update, Sbest is set to Si+1, so the stopping check |Si+1 - Sbest| < epsilon is immediately satisfied and the loop would terminate after the first accepted variant; this undermines the iterative-refinement claim but is not itself a circularity. The framework may be a useful engineering artifact, but the paper does not provide any external benchmark that would break the evaluator/optimizer feedback loop, so the reported gains cannot be treated as evidence of genuine quality improvement.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of LLM self-evaluation and on the assumption that hill-climbing these scores improves real-world quality. No external benchmarks are used, so the framework's gains are only meaningful if those assumptions hold. No new physical entities are postulated; the software agents are components of the proposed architecture rather than independent inventions requiring their own evidence.

free parameters (3)

epsilon (improvement threshold)
Algorithm 1 requires epsilon to decide when to stop, but no value is given; the choice affects how many iterations run.
max_iterations
Algorithm 1 requires a maximum iteration count, but no value is reported for any case study.
qualitative evaluation criteria set
The criteria (clarity, relevance, depth, actionability) are hand-selected in Section 3.2 and used as the optimization objective; no justification or sensitivity analysis is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The LLM evaluator's qualitative scores reflect true output quality.
Section 3.2 uses Llama 3.2-3B to score clarity, relevance, depth, and actionability; no calibration against human judgments is reported.
ad hoc to paper Autonomous hill-climbing on LLM scores converges to a better agentic system.
Algorithm 1 assumes iterative score increases correspond to meaningful improvement; no external benchmarks support this.
domain assumption Hypotheses generated by the LLM are safe and valid modifications.
The Modification Agent applies LLM-generated changes without human review; risks of reward hacking are acknowledged but not tested.
domain assumption The case-study domains and criteria are representative.
All nine reported case studies show improvements; no failures or negative results are described, suggesting selective reporting.
domain assumption Optimizing the stated criteria does not degrade unmeasured dimensions.
No measurement of cost, safety, user satisfaction, or downstream task success beyond LLM scores is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multi-AI Agent System for Autonomous Optimization of Agentic AI Solutions via Iterative Refinement and LLM-Driven Feedback Loops." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7MFJVP3

@misc{pith2026241217149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multi-AI Agent System for Autonomous Optimization of Agentic AI Solutions via Iterative Refinement and LLM-Driven Feedback Loops},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7MFJVP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17149}
}

read the original abstract

Agentic AI systems use specialized agents to handle tasks within complex workflows, enabling automation and efficiency. However, optimizing these systems often requires labor-intensive, manual adjustments to refine roles, tasks, and interactions. This paper introduces a framework for autonomously optimizing Agentic AI solutions across industries, such as NLP-driven enterprise applications. The system employs agents for Refinement, Execution, Evaluation, Modification, and Documentation, leveraging iterative feedback loops powered by an LLM (Llama 3.2-3B). The framework achieves optimal performance without human input by autonomously generating and testing hypotheses to improve system configurations. This approach enhances scalability and adaptability, offering a robust solution for real-world applications in dynamic environments. Case studies across diverse domains illustrate the transformative impact of this framework, showcasing significant improvements in output quality, relevance, and actionability. All data for these case studies, including original and evolved agent codes, along with their outputs, are here: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/evolver-1D11/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17149 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** AI Architect Agent Refinement 4.3 Career Transition Agent The original AI transition agent system was intended to assist software engineers in transitioning to AI specialist roles. However, it struggled with alignment to industry expertise and clarity in career growth goals. This disconnect resulted in ineffective action plans and poor communication clarity. The evolved system adopted a multifaceted approach, intr… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Market Research Agent Refinement 4.2 Medical AI Architect Agent The architect agent system for medical imaging faced challenges related to regulatory compliance, patient engagement, and explainability of AI-driven decision-making processes. These limitations resulted in moderate evaluation scores, undermining the system’s effectiveness in addressing critical healthcare needs. In response, the evolved system inco… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Outreach Agent Refinement and engaging content. The evolved system incorporated four specialized roles, including an Audience Engagement Specialist, to enhance content development and audience interaction. To ensure relevancy, a dynamic content strategy emphasizing audience metrics and adaptability was implemented. The refined outputs significantly improved contextual relevance, accuracy, audience engagement poten… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Career Transition Agent Refinement 4.4 Outreach Agent Initially, the outreach agent system designed for the supply chain faced limitations due to its narrow focus and poor output quality. The original system was characterized by basic roles, such as Email Drafter, whic…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: LinkedIn Agent Refinement 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Lead Generation Agent Refinement 4.8 Evaluation Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Meeting Agent Refinement 4.7 Lead Generation Agent The lead generation agent for the "AI for Personalized Learning" platform faced challenges regarding alignment with business objectives and data accuracy. These limitations hindered the system’s ability to generate v…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Original vs Evolved System Comparisons across Multiple Case Studies: Each pair of bars represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

CODE-GEN: A Human-in-the-Loop RAG-Based Agentic AI System for Multiple-Choice Question Generation
cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A tool-augmented dual-agent RAG system generates and validates coding MCQs, reaching 79.9–98.6% human-validated success and showing AI handles computational checks while humans remain essential for pedagogical depth.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. 2024. Automated design of agentic systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08435

arXiv 2024
[4]

Qian Huang, Jian Vora, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2024. Mlagentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 20271--20309. PMLR

work page 2024
[5]

Sarah Johnson and Ming Liu. 2023. Professional agents: Evolving large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

work page 2023
[6]

Tula Masterman, Sandi Besen, Mason Sawtell, and Alex Chao. 2024. The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584

arXiv 2024
[7]

Jason Miller, Kate O’Neill, and Deepak Ranjan. 2024. Ai agents that matter: Performance, scalability, and adaptation in agentic systems. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Autonomous Systems. Springer

work page 2024
[8]

Arindam Mitra, Luciano Del Corro, Guoqing Zheng, Shweti Mahajan, Dany Rouhana, Andres Codas, Yadong Lu, Wei ge Chen, Olga Vrousgos, Corby Rosset, Fillipe Silva, Hamed Khanpour, Yash Lara, and Ahmed Awadallah. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03502 Agentinstruct: Toward generative teaching with agentic flows . Preprint, arXiv:2407.03502

arXiv 2024

Show all 14 references

[9]

Alexander Pan, Erik Jones, Meena Jagadeesan, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06627 Feedback loops with language models drive in-context reward hacking . Preprint, arXiv:2402.06627

2024 arXiv
[10]

Wei Pan and Lei Zhang. 2024. Autonomous evaluation and refinement of digital agents. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

2024
[11]

Jordan Smith, Liam O'Connor, and Divya Patel. 2023. Large model agents: State-of-the-art cooperation. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2023
[12]

Antonin Sulc, Thorsten Hellert, Raimund Kammering, Hayden Houscher, and Jason St John. 2024. Towards agentic ai on particle accelerators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06336

2024 arXiv
[13]

Tao Wang, Jing Li, and Rui Huang. 2024. Agentic skill discovery with large language models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 72:145--178

2024
[14]

Xiao Yu, Baolin Peng, Vineeth Vajipey, Hao Cheng, Michel Galley, Jianfeng Gao, and Zhou Yu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02052 Improving autonomous ai agents with reflective tree search and self-learning . Preprint, arXiv:2410.02052

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. 2024. Automated design of agentic systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08435

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Qian Huang, Jian Vora, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2024. Mlagentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 20271--20309. PMLR

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Sarah Johnson and Ming Liu. 2023. Professional agents: Evolving large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Tula Masterman, Sandi Besen, Mason Sawtell, and Alex Chao. 2024. The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Jason Miller, Kate O’Neill, and Deepak Ranjan. 2024. Ai agents that matter: Performance, scalability, and adaptation in agentic systems. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Autonomous Systems. Springer

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Arindam Mitra, Luciano Del Corro, Guoqing Zheng, Shweti Mahajan, Dany Rouhana, Andres Codas, Yadong Lu, Wei ge Chen, Olga Vrousgos, Corby Rosset, Fillipe Silva, Hamed Khanpour, Yash Lara, and Ahmed Awadallah. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03502 Agentinstruct: Toward generative teaching with agentic flows . Preprint, arXiv:2407.03502

arXiv 2024