Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

MyAG's central claim is that splitting agent systems into component, workflow, and search graphs lets the same components run under different strategies while exposing performance-efficiency tradeoffs.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 05:03 UTC pith:K6O27EZR

load-bearing objection A small, honest framework paper whose three-graph separation is a real organizational contribution; the state-restoration gap is real but should be tested against the code, not the abstract. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13474 v1 pith:K6O27EZR submitted 2026-07-15 cs.CL

MyAG: A Graph-Based Framework for Designing and Analyzing Composable LLM Agent Systems

Zhisong Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords LLM agentsgraph-based frameworkcomponent graphworkflow graphsearch graphhierarchical compositionefficiency analysisperformance-efficiency tradeoffs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper's claim is that the reason LLM agent systems are hard to design and compare is that three distinct concerns—what components exist, how they are executed, and how alternative execution paths are explored—are usually tangled together. MyAG keeps them as three separate graphs: a component graph, a workflow graph, and a search graph. With this separation, the same agents, environments, and tools can be reused under different workflows and search strategies without rewriting. The paper further claims that hierarchical composition via system nodes makes sub-systems reusable modules, and that recording LLM-token and environment-action costs turns the framework into an instrument for performance-efficiency tradeoff analysis. If the claims hold, researchers get a lightweight (~4,000 core lines) common platform for varying one design axis at a time.

Core claim

MyAG's central claim is that agent construction should be decomposed into three graphs: a component graph (agents, environments, tools), a workflow graph (execution control), and a search graph (runtime states, resumable execution). Same components can then run under different workflows and search strategies (greedy, best-first, rollback, best-of-N). System nodes wrap sub-systems as reusable components in stateless or stateful modes. Cost records (weighted LLM tokens, action latency) enable performance-efficiency comparison, demonstrated on GAIA-text and Mind2Web-Live.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the three-graph separation itself: the component graph (declarations), the workflow graph (program logic), and the search graph (runtime states). The search graph is the load-bearing piece for the flexibility claim—it stores runtime states as nodes and resumes from a selected node via state restoration, so one search strategy can be applied to any workflow. System nodes complete the design by letting one system be a component inside another, each with its own graphs. Together these let a user vary one axis (workflow or search) while keeping components fixed, and produce the recorded cost metrics used for analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's ability to resume from an arbitrary search node depends on the assumption that an agent system's execution state—including external environments like a browser—can be faithfully saved and restored at any point, which is not guaranteed for actions with irreversible side effects.

What would settle it

Run a best-first or rollback strategy on a task where an action has an irreversible external effect (sending a message, placing an order, writing a file) and check whether returning to a stored state actually reverts the observable world state. If the environment cannot be rewound, or if the restored internal state diverges from the live environment, the claimed generality of the search graph fails in a concrete setup.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The same web-agent components can be run under greedy, best-first, rollback, and best-of-N strategies without changing the component or workflow definitions.
  • Sub-systems can be packaged once and reused either as stateless tools or as stateful teammates, enabling modular multi-agent construction.
  • Because LLM-token and environment-action costs are recorded per step, any workflow or search strategy can be compared on both task accuracy and resource use, as demonstrated on GAIA-text and Mind2Web-Live.
  • A small core (~4,000 lines) makes it practical for research groups to build, modify, and share agent systems without the overhead of larger orchestration libraries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the three-graph separation could enable automated search over the design space itself, since components, workflows, and search strategies are independent axes that could be enumerated and measured.
  • A natural next step not stated in the paper is using the recorded cost metrics to build a standard performance-efficiency protocol or leaderboard, since the framework already outputs raw execution records.
  • The search-graph abstraction could generalize beyond web agents if state restoration is given formal semantics for side effects, potentially covering code execution or tool use where safe rollback is currently hard.
  • The action-level cost analysis suggests that component-level choices (e.g., which environment actions are allowed) can dominate efficiency, so design optimization at the component level may matter before a workflow or search strategy is even selected.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MyAG, an open-source graph-based framework for designing LLM agent systems. It separates agent-system construction into three graph abstractions: a component graph for agents, environments, and modules; a workflow graph for execution control; and a search graph for runtime execution and search. It also supports hierarchical composition through recursive "system nodes" and provides efficiency-analysis tools that record LLM-side and environment-side costs. The evaluation applies four strategies (Greedy, Best-first, Rollback, Best-of-N) on GAIA-text and Mind2Web-Live, reports performance and cost metrics, and analyzes component- and action-level latency, plus how different underlying LLMs affect performance-efficiency tradeoffs.

Significance. If the design works as claimed, the three-graph separation is a valuable conceptual contribution: it decouples component composition from workflow control and runtime search, making it easier to reuse the same components under different strategies and to analyze performance-efficiency tradeoffs. The framework is lightweight (~4K core lines), fully open source, and ships with a demo and visualization dashboard, all of which are concrete strengths. The experiments demonstrate that the same framework can run several non-trivial search strategies on two benchmarks, supporting the core flexibility claim. However, the evidence is mostly qualitative, and several load-bearing technical details—especially the semantics of state restoration in the search graph—are underspecified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Search Graph] The search-graph abstraction claims that "execution can resume from a selected node through state restoration," but the paper never defines what runtime state includes, how non-serializable resources (browser sessions, open files, websockets, external side effects) are handled, or whether restoration is exact or approximate. This is load-bearing for the best-first and rollback strategies in Figures 4 and 5, because those strategies require returning to a semantically identical earlier environment state. Table 2 shows a "Reset" component that accounts for a nontrivial fraction of latency (e.g., 11.4% for Best-first), suggesting restoration is not free or exact. The authors should specify the state-serialization semantics, describe the mechanism (snapshots, replay, environment reset), and discuss failure cases; otherwise the claimed generality of the three-graph separation is not establish
  2. [§3.1–§3.2, Figures 4–5] Each experiment is run three times and averaged, but no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported. The text makes comparative claims such as "The Rollback strategy obtains the best overall performance when sufficient budget is available," yet with three runs the observed differences may be within run-to-run noise. The lack of variance information makes it impossible to assess whether the reported performance-efficiency tradeoffs are genuine strategy differences. Please provide per-run results, error bars, or a clear statement that these are illustrative demonstrations rather than statistically validated comparisons.
  3. [§3.1, Settings] The text states: "we set the maximum step budget to 36, and we also vary this budget in our evaluation to study how different strategies scale with test-time computation." However, no results are presented for varying the step budget anywhere in the main text or appendices. Either add the budget-variation experiment (e.g., accuracy/cost curves as a function of step budget) or remove the claim, since the current evaluation does not support the asserted analysis of scaling with test-time computation.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 compares MyAG with other frameworks using a subjective feature checklist (✓ / ◦ / –) and an approximate "#Core-Lines" count, but no methodology is given for how features were assessed or how lines were counted. The table is used to argue that MyAG is lightweight and uniquely supports all four features, yet the entries are not reproducible and may conflate absence of a feature with absence of a particular API. Please provide objective feature criteria, or rephrase the table as a qualitative design summary rather than a comparative evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3, Efficiency Analysis] The cost metrics C_L and C_E depend on user-defined weights α, β, and w(s_t, a_t). The paper does not state the values used for Figures 4 and 5, even though the axes label cost as "K tokens" and "seconds." Specify whether α=β=1 and w equals action latency, or otherwise report the exact cost-model configuration for reproducibility.
  2. [§3.1, Setup] The paper does not report the number of evaluation instances used for GAIA-text and Mind2Web-Live, nor how the subsets were selected. This information is needed to gauge the stability of the reported accuracies and cost averages.
  3. [§2.1, Workflow Graph] There is a grammar issue: "During execution, we maintains a workflow-level variable map" should be "we maintain." Also, the workflow graph is described only through a single web-agent example; a small formal definition or pseudocode of node/edge semantics would improve precision.
  4. [Table 2] The "Reset" row is not defined in the running text. Explain what reset operations correspond to (e.g., browser state clearing, context switching) so the latency breakdown is interpretable.
  5. [Appendix B] The activated-parameter cost model is acknowledged as simplified, which is good. However, the paper does not specify how the cost proportionality constant is chosen across dense and MoE models, nor how parameter counts were obtained. Please add these details or explicitly label the model as illustrative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's central claim is a framework-design claim demonstrated by external benchmarks and defined cost metrics; no prediction reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

MyAG does not contain a derivation chain in which an output is equivalent to an input. The central claim is that separating component/workflow/search graphs enables reuse of components across strategies; this is a design claim and is tested by implementing four strategies in the same framework and measuring them on external benchmarks (GAIA-text, Mind2Web-Live). The cost metrics C_L and C_E are explicit definitions (weighted token sums and a user-defined/empirical latency cost), not parameters fitted to force a result; the paper even cautions in Limitations that the metrics are configurable analysis tools rather than standardized protocols. The search-graph state-restoration mechanism is underspecified for non-serializable environments, but underspecification is a correctness/completeness risk, not circularity: the paper never defines state in terms of the outcomes it later reports. The only relevant self-citation is the Rollback strategy referencing the author's WebRollback paper (Zhang et al., 2026); that citation merely names a strategy implemented for comparison and is not load-bearing for the framework's claimed generality, and it is not invoked to forbid alternatives or justify uniqueness. Table 1 is a qualitative feature comparison, not a fitted prediction. Overall, the results are internally and externally falsifiable, and no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on domain assumptions about LLM behavior and state restoration, plus configurable cost parameters. No physical entities are invented; the invented items are software abstractions. The parameters do not appear to be fit to force the claimed results.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha, beta (LLM cost weights) = not specified; user-configurable
    CL = Σ(α·Lin + β·Lout). The weights are set by API prices or latency, meaning Cost-LLM numbers depend on this choice, but the central qualitative claim does not require specific values.
  • w(s_t,a_t) environment cost function = empirically measured action latency in experiments
    CE = Σ w(s_t,a_t). The choice of cost function affects reported environment-efficiency numbers; the paper instantiates it as latency.
  • maximum step budget = 36 (unless otherwise specified)
    The step budget caps all strategies in the main experiments; results could shift with a different budget. The paper says it varies the budget, but the main figures show only the default budget.
  • activated-parameter cost proportionality = per-token cost proportional to activated parameters
    Used in Appendix B to compare MoE and dense models. This is an additional modeling assumption, not central to the framework claim.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption LLM policy + prompt can implement each workflow/search module (Action, Finish, Rollback, scorer, judge).
    The framework assumes the underlying LLM produces usable decisions from these modules; no guarantee or formal bound is given.
  • domain assumption Agent execution state can be serialized and restored at workflow nodes for search resumption.
    The search graph abstraction relies on state restoration, but the paper does not formally specify its semantics or limitations.
  • domain assumption GAIA-text and Mind2Web-Live are representative enough to demonstrate general framework flexibility.
    The paper uses two benchmarks; the limitations section acknowledges that broader evaluation is future work.
  • domain assumption Efficiency can be decomposed into independent LLM-side and environment-side costs.
    The cost model ignores interactions like memory pressure or queueing; the paper itself calls the metrics configurable tools rather than a standard protocol.
invented entities (2)
  • System node no independent evidence
    purpose: Wraps a complete sub-system as a reusable component inside another system for hierarchical composition.
    Software abstraction introduced in §2.2; it is implemented in code but has no falsifiable prediction outside the paper's examples.
  • Three-graph decomposition (component/workflow/search graphs) no independent evidence
    purpose: Separates component availability, execution control, and runtime exploration.
    Conceptual abstraction organizing framework design; its utility is demonstrated only via the paper's examples and dashboard, not by an external benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8756 in / 9329 out tokens · 96444 ms · 2026-08-02T05:03:15.740663+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present MyAG, a graph-based framework for designing and analyzing composable LLM agent systems. Our framework separates agent system construction into three graph abstractions: a component graph for agents, environments, and modules; a workflow graph for execution control; and a search graph for runtime execution. This separation allows users to flexibly reuse the same components with different strategies. We further support hierarchical composition through recursive system nodes and provide monitoring and visualization tools for inspecting agent execution. Experiments on representative agent applications show that our framework supports flexible agent system design and helps analyze performance-efficiency tradeoffs. Our framework is publicly available and fully open-source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13474 by Zhisong Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the core features of MyAG. et al., 2024), and AutoGen (Wu et al., 2024) pro￾vide abstractions for multi-agent collaboration; li￾braries such as LangGraph (LangChain AI, 2026) and Microsoft Agent Framework (Microsoft, 2026) support graph-based workflow orchestration; and runtime search strategies have been explored in re￾search works such as tree-of-thought (Yao et al., 2023a) and tree-search-ba… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the component graph and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the hierarchical composition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance-efficiency analysis of different strategies (on GAIA-text). For each strategy, we report task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance-efficiency analysis of different strategies (on Mind2Web-Live). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance vs relative token cost with differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A screenshot of the visualization dashboard. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance-efficiency analysis with different underlying LLMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Frontiers of Computer Science , volume=

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents , author=. Frontiers of Computer Science , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  2. [2]

    Science China Information Sciences , volume=

    The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey , author=. Science China Information Sciences , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21460 , year=

    Large language model agent: A survey on methodology, applications and challenges , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21460 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  5. [5]

    Sirui Hong and Mingchen Zhuge and Jonathan Chen and Xiawu Zheng and Yuheng Cheng and Jinlin Wang and Ceyao Zhang and Zili Wang and Steven Ka Shing Yau and Zijuan Lin and Liyang Zhou and Chenyu Ran and Lingfeng Xiao and Chenglin Wu and J. Meta. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  6. [6]

    AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen

    Qingyun Wu and Gagan Bansal and Jieyu Zhang and Yiran Wu and Beibin Li and Erkang Zhu and Li Jiang and Xiaoyun Zhang and Shaokun Zhang and Jiale Liu and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah and Ryen W White and Doug Burger and Chi Wang , booktitle=. AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen. 2024 , url=

    2024

  7. [7]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  8. [8]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research , issn=

    Tree Search for Language Model Agents , author=. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , issn=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  9. [9]

    2026 , howpublished=

    LangGraph: Low-level orchestration framework for building stateful agents , author=. 2026 , howpublished=

    2026

  10. [10]

    2026 , howpublished=

    Microsoft Agent Framework , author=. 2026 , howpublished=

    2026

  11. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16416 , year=

    Survey on evaluation of llm-based agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16416 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    A Review of Prominent Paradigms for LLM -Based Agents: Tool Use, Planning (Including RAG ), and Feedback Learning

    Li, Xinzhe. A Review of Prominent Paradigms for LLM -Based Agents: Tool Use, Planning (Including RAG ), and Feedback Learning. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    AgentSquare: Automatic

    Yu Shang and Yu Li and Keyu Zhao and Likai Ma and Jiahe Liu and Fengli Xu and Yong Li , booktitle=. AgentSquare: Automatic. 2025 , url=

    2025

  14. [14]

    2025 , url=

    Jiayi Zhang and Jinyu Xiang and Zhaoyang Yu and Fengwei Teng and Xiong-Hui Chen and Jiaqi Chen and Mingchen Zhuge and Xin Cheng and Sirui Hong and Jinlin Wang and Bingnan Zheng and Bang Liu and Yuyu Luo and Chenglin Wu , booktitle=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  15. [15]

    Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for

    Sayash Kapoor and Benedikt Stroebl and Peter Kirgis and Nitya Nadgir and Zachary S Siegel and Boyi Wei and Tianci Xue and Ziru Chen and Felix Chen and Saiteja Utpala and Franck Ndzomga and Dheeraj Oruganty and Sophie Luskin and Kangheng Liu and Botao Yu and Amit Arora and Dongyoon Hahm and Harsh Trivedi and Huan Sun and Juyong Lee and Tengjun Jin and Yifa...

    2026

  16. [16]

    The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models , author=. The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  17. [17]

    Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena , url =

    Zheng, Lianmin and Chiang, Wei-Lin and Sheng, Ying and Zhuang, Siyuan and Wu, Zhanghao and Zhuang, Yonghao and Lin, Zi and Li, Zhuohan and Li, Dacheng and Xing, Eric and Zhang, Hao and Gonzalez, Joseph and Stoica, Ion , booktitle =. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena , url =

  18. [18]

    2025 , url=

    Sayash Kapoor and Benedikt Stroebl and Zachary S Siegel and Nitya Nadgir and Arvind Narayanan , journal=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  19. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09292 , year=

    Lightagent: Production-level open-source agentic ai framework , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09292 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    , author =

    `smolagents`: a smol library to build great agentic systems. , author =

  21. [21]

    W eb V oyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Models

    He, Hongliang and Yao, Wenlin and Ma, Kaixin and Yu, Wenhao and Dai, Yong and Zhang, Hongming and Lan, Zhenzhong and Yu, Dong. W eb V oyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Models. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.371

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.371 2024

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12373 , year=

    Webcanvas: Benchmarking web agents in online environments , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12373 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Gr. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  24. [24]

    W eb R ollback: Enhancing Web Agents with Explicit Rollback Mechanisms

    Zhang, Zhisong and Fang, Tianqing and Ma, Kaixin and Yu, Wenhao and Zhang, Hongming and Mi, Haitao and Yu, Dong. W eb R ollback: Enhancing Web Agents with Explicit Rollback Mechanisms. Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the E uropean Chapter of the A ssociation for C omputational L inguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). 2026. doi:10.18653/v1/2026.eacl-short.12

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2026.eacl-short.12 2026

  25. [25]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Let's Verify Step by Step , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  26. [26]

    The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

    EnCompass: Enhancing Agent Programming with Search Over Program Execution Paths , author=. The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , year=