Compound LLM systems often solve a coordination problem by adding a higher-level LLM. The resulting meta-agent reads workers'outputs, writes the final answer, allocates later calls, and decides when to stop. It is expressive, but it also concentrates three control decisions in an opaque, order-sensitive model call. We ask whether the manager needs to be generative at all. UnitBoost replaces that model with a defined meta-level operator: a task-given unit map turns worker outputs into slot-value proposals, a constrained argmax assembles the output, and the slots left unfilled or unsupported become an explicit residual for the next round. The operator is order-free, records unit provenance, and gives a simple guarantee: without coupling constraints, unit-wise maximization under the same admission score dominates selection of any complete candidate. On three held-out benchmarks, it exceeds the best single candidate chosen with gold labels by 0.060-0.195 absolute task-score points and input-matched generative managers by 0.048-0.076. Replacing only the management step improves six compound-system configurations by 0.013-0.182. Residual-directed rounds raise FanOutQA cell F1 from 0.4778 to 0.5524; matched controls show that the true residual outperforms random targets and ordinary rereading, while a label-free supply signal flags exhaustion after one unproductive round. The same analysis measures three conditions in which no such gain is available (one indivisible unit, unavailable unit identity, and an endpoint that charges for every emitted unit) and quantifies cross-unit coupling as a repair cost. The manager gives up semantic freedom and gains order invariance, unit provenance, and testable failure conditions.
Xing Zhang, Guanghui Wang, Ya Cui et al.· 0 citations
Self-evolving agent systems create, revise, and retire their own skills, but every such loop assumes a reliable evaluation metric already exists. In many real applications none does. We show the metric itself can be the evolving object: our loop searches compositions of small typed drawback detectors under a full evolutionary lifecycle, selecting for agreement with a ten-item anchored reference set and regularizing by consensus over unlabeled outputs. What evolves is the function that grades one output, never the fixed task sets it is scored on, and what comes out is an inspectable expression rather than an opaque judge. It is also valid: on code generation it gains 0.21 agreement with hidden ground truth on a locked set that metric selection never reads (paired $p=0.014$), beating the bare LLM judge it contains. Validity is where safety lives: removing the anchor guards collapses the metric into a vacuous always-pass detector while removing the detector lifecycle does not, inverting the lesson from skill evolution. That collapse warns this line of work that downstream task score cannot validate a self-evolved evaluator, since the collapsed metric trains skills just as well. Task score answers only sufficiency, and an evolved metric suffices: \emph{Double Ratchet}, co-evolving the metric with a lifecycle-managed skill loop, retains 88--110\% of the lift ground truth or a hand-written rubric buys, across MBPP+, Spider~2.0-Snow, and report generation. When evolved skills gamed the report rubric, an independent judge caught it and one added detector repaired it.
Xing Zhang, Guanghui Wang, Ya Cui et al.· 0 citations
EvalCEGAR is a pool of small Python operators that each flag a candidate for one named defect, or abstain, and vote, and borrows counterexample-guided abstraction refinement from program verification to score agents against a reliable automatic metric.
Xing Zhang, Ya Cui, Guanghui Wang et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
