📋 AI Review from DeepReviewer will be automatically processed
📋 AI Review from ZGCA will be automatically processed
The paper introduces TrAgent, a tree-based orchestration system for coordinating multiple self-controlled LLM agents via a PUCT-style search that preserves agent autonomy while enabling inter-agent experience sharing and scalable exploration. The key methodological component is a parent-level prior-shaping mechanism (Eq. 6) that blends static priors P(s,a) with empirical evidence from visit counts N(s,a) and an exponentially smoothed success signal EXP(s,a) (Eq. 5), progressively shifting from static to data-driven priors as experience accrues. The value signal V is normalized from measured kernel performance (Eq. 3). The system is instantiated on general matrix multiplication (GEMM) kernel optimization on GPUs, using a specification-driven development (SDD) protocol with correctness checks and Nsight Compute metrics. Experiments compare TrAgent to a single self-controlled agent (two MCP variants) and a random baseline, with ablations on the exploration constant c, tree depth/width, and autonomy features (reflection and memory toggles). The paper reports that TrAgent outperforms the baselines and approaches roughly 80% of cuBLAS in representative settings.
Cross‑Modal Consistency: 22/50
Textual Logical Soundness: 20/30
Visual Aesthetics & Clarity: 10/20
Overall Score: 52/100
Detailed Evaluation (≤500 words):
Visual ground truth
• Figure 1: Concept diagram contrasting fixed-role agents vs TrAgent‑organized autonomous agents; icons, “Character/Function/Workflow” labels; tree sketch.
• Figure 2: Line plot. x-axis: Rounds (PUCT iterations). y-axis: “Normalized Elapsed Time (baseline = 1)”. Legend: single agent, system codex, random, “cublas (≈2% of baseline)”. Curves: system and single-agent decrease toward ≈0.58–0.65; random ~1; cuBLAS ~0.02.
1. Cross‑Modal Consistency
• Major 1: Central 80%‑of‑cuBLAS claim conflicts with Fig. 2 values. Evidence: Abstract; Fig. 2 y-axis, legend “cublas (≈2% of baseline)”, system curve ≈0.58.
• Major 2: Fig. 2 caption claims ms on y‑axis; figure shows normalized time. Evidence: Sec 4, Fig. 2 caption “elapsed time (ms)”; image y‑axis “Normalized Elapsed Time”.
• Major 3: Text says results for two model families; figure lacks “claude‑code‑style” series. Evidence: Sec 4 “codex‑style and claude‑code‑style”; Fig. 2 legend lacks claude.
• Major 4: “Scaling as number of agents increases” asserted without any plot/table varying agent count. Evidence: Abstract “scaling … as the number of agents increases”; no corresponding figure/table.
• Major 5: Claimed ablations (c, depth/width, autonomy) are not presented. Evidence: Method “We ablate c, tree depth/width, and autonomy features”; only Fig. 2 shown.
• Minor 1: Missing depiction of standard deviations despite claiming averages with SD. Evidence: Sec 4 “averaging … with standard deviations”; Fig. 2 shows no error bars/bands.
• Minor 2: Notation mismatch between text and pseudocode (ρ,ε vs r,e) and duplicated “equation”. Evidence: Eq. 6 uses ρ, ε; Algorithm 1 uses r, e; “Equation equation 6”.
2. Text Logic
• Major 1: Performance conclusion (“approaching vendor library”) is unsupported given Fig. 2 gap to cuBLAS. Evidence: Conclusion; Fig. 2 cuBLAS ≈0.02 vs system ≈0.58.
• Minor 1: Spacing artifacts hinder readability but not substance. Evidence: Eq. 3 shows “c l i p”, “t i m e”.
• Minor 2: Optimize Elapsed Cycles but report elapsed time; relation unargued. Evidence: Sec 4.1 “Elapsed Cycles”; Sec 4 reports “elapsed time”.
3. Figure Quality
• Major 1: Fig. 1 is likely illegible at print size (150 px tall; dense icons/text). Evidence: Fig. 1 image 150 px height.
• Minor 1: Fig. 2 would benefit from SD bands and explicit “lower is better” note; add claude series.
Key strengths:
• Clear PUCT‑style controller with parent‑shaped priors; autonomy‑preserving design is well articulated.
• GEMM SDD task specification is concrete, with correctness and constraints clearly stated.
Key weaknesses:
• Core performance and scaling claims are not supported by the provided figure.
• Multiple figure–text mismatches (units, missing series, missing ablations).
• Legibility of Fig. 1 and minor notation/formatting issues reduce clarity.
Recommendations:
• Reconcile performance reporting; add plots versus cuBLAS with consistent normalization and SD.
• Include claude‑style results, agent‑count scaling curves, and ablation figures.
• Fix units/captions, notation consistency (ρ/ε vs r/e), and improve Fig. 1 readability with larger text and call‑outs.
• Add “lower is better” and error bands to Fig. 2; ensure MCP variants are labeled.
📋 AI Review from SafeReviewer will be automatically processed
This paper introduces a novel tree-based orchestration system, named TrAgent, designed for self-controlled agents. The system utilizes a PUCT-style search algorithm to dynamically allocate agent actions while maintaining their autonomy. The authors claim that this approach offers three key benefits: full agent autonomy for critical tasks, a generalized mechanism for inter-agent experience sharing, and scalability as the number of agents increases. The effectiveness of the system is demonstrated through the task of general matrix multiplication (GEMM) kernel optimization, achieving 80% of the performance of the cuBLAS code. Additionally, the system exhibits a scaling phenomenon as the number of agents increases. The authors provide an analysis of how search hyperparameters and autonomy features shape the effectiveness of the system.
The primary strength of this paper lies in its introduction of TrAgent, a novel approach to orchestrating self-controlled agents using a tree-based search mechanism inspired by PUCT. This is a significant contribution as it offers a new way to leverage the power of multiple autonomous agents in complex optimization tasks. The idea of maintaining full agent autonomy while using a tree search to coordinate their efforts is particularly compelling. This allows agents to make critical decisions regarding planning and tool use, while the tree search mechanism ensures that the overall exploration is efficient and effective. The paper also presents a well-defined methodology, clearly outlining the components of the TrAgent system, including the tree structure, the PUCT algorithm, and the experience mechanism. The experimental results, although limited to GEMM kernel optimization, demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach. The fact that TrAgent achieves performance levels approaching that of highly optimized libraries like cuBLAS is a strong indicator of its effectiveness. The paper is also well-written and easy to follow, which enhances its accessibility and impact. The authors clearly articulate the problem they are addressing, the proposed solution, and the experimental results. The use of a PUCT-style search for multi-agent orchestration is a creative adaptation of a well-established algorithm, and the paper successfully demonstrates its potential in the context of GEMM kernel optimization. The paper's focus on agent autonomy is also a strength, as it allows for more flexible and adaptable systems. The authors have clearly identified a gap in the existing literature and have proposed a novel solution that addresses this gap. The potential for this approach to be applied to other complex optimization tasks is also a significant strength, suggesting a promising direction for future research.
After a thorough examination of the paper, I've identified several key weaknesses that warrant careful consideration. Firstly, the paper's experimental evaluation is limited in scope, focusing solely on GEMM kernel optimization. While the authors demonstrate promising results on this specific task, the lack of evaluation on other tasks raises concerns about the generalizability of the proposed approach. As noted by multiple reviewers, it is unclear whether TrAgent would perform equally well on tasks with different characteristics, such as those involving symbolic reasoning or natural language processing. This limitation is explicitly acknowledged in the paper's 'Limitations & Future Work' section, which states that future work should evaluate broader operator suites and heterogeneous devices. The absence of experiments on diverse tasks makes it difficult to assess the true potential of TrAgent as a general-purpose optimization framework. Secondly, the paper lacks a direct comparison with other established multi-agent systems. While the authors compare TrAgent against single-agent baselines and a random search baseline, they do not provide a comparison against other state-of-the-art multi-agent optimization techniques. This omission makes it difficult to assess the relative performance of TrAgent and to determine whether it offers any significant advantages over existing methods. The paper does mention existing multi-agent systems in the introduction and related work sections, but the absence of a direct experimental comparison is a significant weakness. Furthermore, the paper does not provide sufficient details about the implementation of the single-agent baselines. While the paper mentions that the single-agent baselines align with recent work on LLM-driven agents for code generation and optimization, it does not provide specific details about the LLMs used, the prompting strategies, or the optimization techniques employed. This lack of detail makes it difficult to reproduce the results and to fully understand the performance of the single-agent baselines. The paper also lacks a detailed analysis of the computational cost of the proposed approach. While the authors mention that search overhead may hinder small workloads, they do not provide a quantitative analysis of the computational resources required by TrAgent. This is a significant weakness, as the computational cost is a critical factor in determining the practicality of any optimization technique. The paper also lacks a detailed analysis of the convergence behavior of the proposed method. While the paper presents performance results over rounds, it does not provide a formal analysis of the convergence rate or a comparison with other optimization methods. This makes it difficult to assess the efficiency of the search process and to determine whether the method is guaranteed to converge to a good solution. Additionally, the paper does not provide a detailed analysis of the impact of the hyperparameters on the performance of the proposed method. While the authors mention that they ablate the exploration constant, they do not provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitivity of the method to different hyperparameter settings. This is a significant weakness, as the performance of tree search algorithms is often highly sensitive to the choice of hyperparameters. Finally, the paper lacks a detailed discussion of the limitations of the proposed approach. While the authors acknowledge that their results are limited to GEMM and do not exhaust all hardware or kernel classes, they do not provide a comprehensive discussion of the potential limitations of the approach. This is a significant weakness, as it is important to understand the limitations of any proposed method in order to assess its potential impact and to identify areas for future research. The paper also does not provide a detailed discussion of the potential for bias in the training data or the impact of the choice of the base LLM on the performance of the system. This is a significant weakness, as these are important factors that can affect the performance and reliability of any AI-based system. The paper also does not provide a detailed discussion of the potential for the system to be used for malicious purposes. This is a significant weakness, as it is important to consider the ethical implications of any AI-based system. In summary, the paper's weaknesses stem from a lack of comprehensive experimental evaluation, insufficient detail in the description of the baselines, and a lack of in-depth analysis of the proposed method's performance and limitations. These weaknesses significantly impact the paper's conclusions and limit its overall impact.
To address the identified weaknesses, I recommend several concrete improvements. First and foremost, the authors should significantly expand the experimental evaluation of TrAgent to include a wider range of tasks beyond GEMM kernel optimization. This should include tasks with varying levels of complexity and different characteristics, such as symbolic reasoning, natural language processing, or combinatorial optimization. This would provide a more robust assessment of the generalizability of the proposed approach and help to identify its strengths and weaknesses in different contexts. For example, the authors could consider applying TrAgent to the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) or the Knapsack problem, which are well-established benchmarks in the field of optimization. This would allow for a direct comparison with existing methods and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the proposed approach. Secondly, the authors should include a direct comparison with other established multi-agent systems in their experimental evaluation. This would provide a more accurate assessment of the relative performance of TrAgent and help to determine whether it offers any significant advantages over existing methods. The authors should consider comparing TrAgent with state-of-the-art multi-agent optimization techniques, such as those based on genetic algorithms or particle swarm optimization. This would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the proposed approach and help to establish its position in the field. Thirdly, the authors should provide more detailed information about the implementation of the single-agent baselines, including the specific LLMs used, the prompting strategies, and the optimization techniques employed. This would improve the reproducibility of the results and allow for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the single-agent baselines. The authors should also consider providing the code for the single-agent baselines to allow other researchers to reproduce their results. Fourthly, the authors should provide a more detailed analysis of the computational cost of the proposed approach, including the time and memory requirements. This would help to assess the practicality of TrAgent and to identify potential bottlenecks. The authors should also consider comparing the computational cost of TrAgent with other multi-agent optimization techniques. Fifthly, the authors should provide a more detailed analysis of the convergence behavior of the proposed method, including a formal analysis of the convergence rate and a comparison with other optimization methods. This would help to assess the efficiency of the search process and to determine whether the method is guaranteed to converge to a good solution. Sixthly, the authors should provide a more detailed analysis of the impact of the hyperparameters on the performance of the proposed method, including a sensitivity analysis of the method to different hyperparameter settings. This would help to identify the optimal hyperparameter settings and to improve the robustness of the method. Seventhly, the authors should provide a more detailed discussion of the limitations of the proposed approach, including the potential limitations of the approach in different contexts. This would help to assess the potential impact of the method and to identify areas for future research. Finally, the authors should provide a more detailed discussion of the potential for bias in the training data and the impact of the choice of the base LLM on the performance of the system. They should also discuss the potential for the system to be used for malicious purposes and the ethical implications of their work. By addressing these weaknesses, the authors can significantly improve the quality and impact of their paper.
Based on my analysis, I have several questions that I believe are crucial for a deeper understanding of the paper's contributions and limitations. Firstly, given the focus on GEMM kernel optimization, I'm curious about the specific rationale for choosing this task as the primary evaluation benchmark. While the paper mentions the practical impact of GEMM, I'd like to understand why other tasks, particularly those that are more diverse in nature, were not included in the experimental evaluation. What specific characteristics of GEMM make it a suitable testbed for evaluating the proposed approach, and how do these characteristics relate to the broader applicability of TrAgent? Secondly, regarding the single-agent baselines, I'm interested in a more detailed explanation of the specific LLMs used, the prompting strategies employed, and the optimization techniques applied. What were the key design choices that influenced the performance of the single-agent baselines, and how do these choices compare to the design choices made in TrAgent? Thirdly, I'm curious about the specific criteria used to define the state and action spaces in the tree search. How were these spaces designed to ensure that the search process was both efficient and effective, and what are the potential limitations of these design choices? Fourthly, I'd like to understand more about the practical implications of the computational cost of TrAgent. What are the specific hardware and software requirements for running the system, and how does the computational cost scale with the complexity of the task? Fifthly, I'm interested in a more detailed analysis of the convergence behavior of the proposed method. What are the theoretical guarantees of convergence, and how does the convergence rate compare to other optimization methods? Sixthly, I'd like to understand more about the sensitivity of the proposed method to different hyperparameter settings. What are the key hyperparameters that influence the performance of TrAgent, and how can these hyperparameters be tuned to achieve optimal performance? Finally, I'm curious about the potential for bias in the training data and the impact of the choice of the base LLM on the performance of the system. What steps were taken to mitigate the potential for bias, and how does the choice of the base LLM affect the performance and reliability of TrAgent? These questions are aimed at clarifying key methodological choices, assumptions, and limitations of the proposed approach, which I believe are essential for a comprehensive understanding of the paper's contributions.