📋 AI Review from DeepReviewer will be automatically processed
📋 AI Review from ZGCA will be automatically processed
The paper proposes TrAgent, a tree-based orchestration framework for self-controlled LLM agents that employs a PUCT-style search to allocate exploration budgets while preserving per-agent autonomy. Each node represents a decision state and edges correspond to agent-proposed actions; selection-expansion-evaluation-backup cycles use priors and values derived from agent judgments and performance signals. The central technical contribution is a shaped prior mechanism (Eq. 6) that blends static priors with parent-level experience via an exponentially-smoothed success indicator EXP(s,a) updated during backup (Eq. 5), gradually shifting from initial policy mass to data-informed preferences as visits accumulate. The orchestrator is intentionally minimal, delegating planning, tool use, and reflection to the agents (autonomy-preserving design). Empirically, the system is evaluated on GEMM kernel optimization under a specification-driven development (SDD) protocol (Sec. 4.1), with correctness checks and Nsight Compute for performance, claiming to approach strong vendor performance and outperform single-agent and random baselines (Fig. 2, Sec. 4.2).
Cross‑Modal Consistency: [22]/50
Textual Logical Soundness: [18]/30
Visual Aesthetics & Clarity: [16]/20
Overall Score: [56]/100
Detailed Evaluation (≤500 words):
1. Cross‑Modal Consistency
• Major 1: Performance claim conflicts with Fig. 2 (≤cuBLAS vs 80% of cuBLAS). Evidence: “achieving 80% of the performance of the cuBLAS code.” (Abstract) vs “decreases … to 0.015 … converging to the cuBLAS … (2% of baseline)” (Sec 4.2) and green curve below the brown “cublas (≈2%)” line in Fig. 2.
• Major 2: Fig. 2 caption units mismatch the plotted metric. Evidence: “Figure 2: … elapsed time (ms, y-axis)” (caption) while axis reads “Normalized Elapsed Time (baseline = 1)” in Fig. 2.
• Major 3: Claimed scaling with number of agents lacks any visual/table support. Evidence: “exhibits a scaling phenomenon as the number of agents increases.” (Abstract); no agent-count ablation shown.
• Minor 1: Random baseline mentioned but not plotted in Fig. 2. Evidence: “comparing against … a random search baseline” (Sec 4) vs Fig. 2 legend lacking this series.
• Minor 2: Standard deviations claimed, but Fig. 2 has no error bars. Evidence: “averaging results over five runs with standard deviations” (Sec 4).
• Minor 3: Symbol inconsistency between text and pseudocode. Evidence: Eq. 6 uses ρ, ε; Algorithm 1 lists r, e (Lines 31–32).
• Minor 4: Objective defined in cycles while reporting time in figures may confuse. Evidence: “minimizes … Elapsed Cycles” (Sec 4.1) vs “Normalized Elapsed Time” in Fig. 2.
2. Text Logic
• Major 1: Flagship performance/generalization claim insufficiently supported by provided evidence. Evidence: “approaching roughly 80% of a strong vendor library across representative settings.” (Intro/Abstract); only one curve, no multi‑shape/hardware results.
• Minor 1: Missing key experimental details (GPU/CPU model, CUDA version, matrix sizes). Evidence: No hardware or size specification in §4.1/§4.2.
• Minor 2: Several formatting artifacts reduce clarity. Evidence: “operatorname {c l i p} … t i m e (c a n d i d a t e)” (Eq. 3) and “Equation equation 6” phrasing.
3. Figure Quality
• No Major issues found.
• Minor 1: Fig. 1 small labels/icons risk illegibility at print size. Evidence: Fig. 1 contains multiple icon labels (“Character/Function/Workflow”, “TrAgent”) in compact layout.
• Minor 2: Fig. 2 lacks uncertainty depiction and gridlines, hindering quick reading. Evidence: Visual inspection of Fig. 2.
• Minor 3: Blue/green series may be hard for some CVD readers without markers. Evidence: Legend shows “single agent” (blue) and “system codex” (green) lines only.
Key strengths:
Key weaknesses:
Recommendations:
📋 AI Review from SafeReviewer will be automatically processed
This paper introduces TrAgent, a novel tree-based orchestration system designed to coordinate self-controlled agents while preserving their autonomy. The core idea is to leverage a PUCT-style search algorithm to dynamically allocate agent actions, enabling efficient exploration of the solution space. The authors argue that traditional multi-agent systems often suffer from limitations such as suppressing agent autonomy, context length constraints, and scalability issues. TrAgent addresses these challenges by representing decision states as nodes in a tree and agent proposals/actions as edges, allowing for a selection-expansion-evaluation-backup cycle that guides exploration while respecting individual agent autonomy. The system's effectiveness is demonstrated through an empirical study focused on optimizing general matrix multiplication (GEMM) kernels, a fundamental operation in high-performance computing. The results show that TrAgent achieves performance close to that of cuBLAS, a highly optimized vendor library, suggesting the potential of this approach for complex optimization tasks. The paper emphasizes the importance of maintaining agent autonomy, arguing that it allows for more flexible and adaptable problem-solving. The authors also highlight the scalability of their approach, claiming that it can handle an increasing number of agents without significant performance degradation. The paper's contribution lies in the novel application of tree-based search to the coordination of self-controlled agents, offering a new perspective on how to manage complex systems while preserving the autonomy of individual components. While the paper presents a promising approach, it also acknowledges limitations, particularly in the scope of the empirical evaluation and the need for further investigation into the system's robustness and generalizability.
I find the core concept of TrAgent, which leverages a tree-based search to coordinate self-controlled agents while preserving their autonomy, to be a significant strength of this paper. The authors have identified a critical challenge in multi-agent systems—the tendency for centralized controllers to limit agent autonomy—and proposed a novel solution that addresses this issue. The use of a PUCT-style search to dynamically allocate agent actions is a clever approach that allows for efficient exploration of the solution space. Furthermore, the paper's focus on self-controlled agents, which can independently plan, use tools, and manage memory, is a forward-thinking perspective that aligns with the current trend in the field of artificial intelligence. The empirical results, which demonstrate that TrAgent achieves performance close to that of cuBLAS on GEMM kernel optimization, are also impressive. This provides strong evidence that the proposed approach is effective for complex optimization tasks. The authors' emphasis on scalability, claiming that TrAgent can handle an increasing number of agents without significant performance degradation, is another positive aspect of the paper. This suggests that the approach has the potential to be applied to larger and more complex systems. Finally, the paper's clear articulation of the limitations of existing multi-agent systems, such as fine-grained top-down control, coordination through shared prompts, and scalability issues, provides a strong motivation for the proposed approach. The authors have effectively identified a gap in the existing literature and have proposed a novel solution that addresses this gap.
While I appreciate the novelty of the proposed approach, I have identified several weaknesses that warrant further consideration. Firstly, the paper's claim of novelty is somewhat undermined by its reliance on existing techniques. As the authors themselves acknowledge, TrAgent is inspired by recent work like AlphaEvolve and is based on the PUCT algorithm popularized by AlphaZero. While the application of these techniques to self-controlled agents is a novel aspect, the core mechanism of tree-based search is not entirely new. This lack of fundamental novelty is a concern, as it suggests that the paper's contribution may be more incremental than revolutionary. Secondly, the paper's explanation of how agent autonomy is preserved within the tree-based search framework is not sufficiently detailed. While the authors state that the orchestrator only controls selection and backup, and that agents decide how to use tools, a more concrete explanation of the interfaces between the orchestrator and the agents, and how agents maintain control over their actions, would be beneficial. The paper lacks a clear description of the specific mechanisms that prevent the orchestrator from imposing constraints on agent behavior. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to fully assess the extent to which agent autonomy is truly preserved. Thirdly, the paper's discussion of the scalability of TrAgent is primarily theoretical, and it lacks empirical evidence to support its claims. While the authors claim that the structured, budgeted search allows the system to scale with the number and strength of agents, the empirical evaluation is limited to a single task (GEMM kernel optimization) and does not involve varying the number of agents. This lack of empirical validation is a significant weakness, as it leaves the reader uncertain about the system's ability to scale to more complex problems with a larger number of agents. Fourthly, the paper's empirical evaluation is limited in scope, focusing solely on GEMM kernel optimization. While GEMM is a fundamental operation, it is not representative of all optimization tasks. The paper lacks experiments on other optimization tasks, such as those involving different types of computations or hardware architectures. This limited evaluation makes it difficult to assess the generalizability of the proposed approach. Fifthly, the paper lacks a detailed analysis of the computational overhead associated with the tree-based search. While the authors mention that search overhead may hinder small workloads, they do not provide a quantitative analysis of the time spent on different stages of the search process. This lack of analysis makes it difficult to assess the practical applicability of the approach, particularly for resource-constrained environments. Sixthly, the paper's explanation of the PUCT-style search is somewhat high-level, and it lacks a detailed explanation of the specific implementation details of the search algorithm. The paper does not provide a clear description of how the tree is constructed, how the exploration-exploitation trade-off is managed, or how the algorithm handles issues such as local optima or premature convergence. This lack of detail makes it difficult to fully understand the inner workings of the algorithm. Finally, the paper's description of the agent's role in the evaluation process is not entirely clear. While the paper states that the evaluation is performed by the agent, it does not provide a detailed explanation of the criteria used for evaluation or the specific mechanisms by which the agents assess the quality of the solutions. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to fully understand the evaluation process and its potential limitations. Additionally, the paper's description of the tree structure is somewhat vague. While the paper states that each node represents a decision state and each edge represents an agent-proposed action, it does not provide a clear explanation of how the tree is initialized, how the nodes are expanded, and how the algorithm handles the case where multiple agents propose the same action. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to fully understand the tree structure and its dynamics. The paper also lacks a clear explanation of the term "rounds", which is used to denote PUCT tree iterations. While the paper does define this term, it is not immediately clear to the reader, and a more explicit definition would be beneficial. These weaknesses, which have been independently validated, significantly impact the paper's conclusions and warrant further investigation.
To address the identified weaknesses, I recommend several concrete improvements. Firstly, the authors should provide a more detailed explanation of how agent autonomy is preserved within the tree-based search framework. This should include a clear description of the interfaces between the orchestrator and the agents, and the specific mechanisms that prevent the orchestrator from imposing constraints on agent behavior. For example, the authors could describe the exact data structures and communication protocols used between the agents and the tree search algorithm. Secondly, the authors should provide more empirical evidence to support their claims about the scalability of TrAgent. This could involve experiments with a larger number of agents, or on more complex problems. The authors should also analyze the computational overhead associated with the tree-based search, and discuss how this overhead scales with the number of agents and the complexity of the task. This analysis should include a quantitative assessment of the time spent on different stages of the search process. Thirdly, the authors should expand the scope of their empirical evaluation to include a wider range of optimization tasks. This could involve experiments on different types of computations, different hardware architectures, or different optimization goals. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of the proposed approach. Fourthly, the authors should provide a more detailed explanation of the PUCT-style search algorithm, including the specific implementation details of the search process. This should include a clear description of how the tree is constructed, how the exploration-exploitation trade-off is managed, and how the algorithm handles issues such as local optima or premature convergence. The authors should also discuss the sensitivity of the algorithm to different hyperparameter settings. Fifthly, the authors should provide a more detailed explanation of the agent's role in the evaluation process. This should include a clear description of the criteria used for evaluation and the specific mechanisms by which the agents assess the quality of the solutions. The authors should also discuss the potential for bias or error in the agent's evaluation process. Sixthly, the authors should provide a more detailed explanation of the tree structure, including how the tree is initialized, how the nodes are expanded, and how the algorithm handles the case where multiple agents propose the same action. The authors should also clarify the meaning of "rounds" and provide a more explicit definition of this term. Finally, the authors should consider comparing their approach to other multi-agent coordination techniques, such as those based on reinforcement learning or evolutionary algorithms. This would help to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of their approach compared to existing methods. These suggestions, if implemented, would significantly strengthen the paper and address the identified weaknesses.
Based on my analysis, I have several questions that I believe are critical to further understanding the proposed approach. Firstly, how does the system handle situations where agents have conflicting goals or when the task requires a high degree of coordination? The paper does not explicitly address this issue, and it is unclear how TrAgent would resolve conflicts or ensure that agents work together effectively. Secondly, what is the computational overhead associated with the tree-based search, and how does this overhead scale with the number of agents and the complexity of the task? The paper mentions that search overhead may hinder small workloads, but it does not provide a detailed analysis of this issue. Thirdly, how sensitive is the performance of TrAgent to the choice of hyperparameters, such as the exploration constant in the PUCT algorithm? The paper does not discuss the sensitivity of the algorithm to different hyperparameter settings, and it is unclear how these parameters should be tuned for different tasks. Fourthly, how does the system ensure the robustness of the solutions found by the agents? The paper does not explicitly address the issue of robustness, and it is unclear how the system would handle noisy or incomplete information. Fifthly, how does the system handle the case where multiple agents propose the same action? The paper does not provide a clear explanation of this issue, and it is unclear how the algorithm would resolve such conflicts. Sixthly, what are the specific criteria used by the agents to evaluate the quality of the solutions? The paper states that the evaluation is performed by the agent, but it does not provide a detailed explanation of the evaluation process. Finally, how does the system handle situations where the task requires a high degree of specialization or expertise? The paper does not explicitly address this issue, and it is unclear how TrAgent would handle tasks that require specialized knowledge or skills. These questions target core methodological choices and assumptions, and they are critical to further understanding the strengths and limitations of the proposed approach.