← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Pedro Santos

Right-Sizing LLM-Agent Decomposition in VAT Determination: A Pilot Controlled Sweep

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study evaluates how to best split tasks among large‑language‑model agents for cross‑border VAT determination, comparing one broad agent to configurations ranging from one to five narrow agents. Across 4,400 runs—including token‑matched and failure‑injection scenarios—the intermediate configurations achieved the highest accuracy but did not surpass the fine‑endpoint benchmark, leaving the optimal decomposition hypothesis unconfirmed. The pilot provides a preregistered heuristic for right‑sizing decomposition, along with an oracle, dataset, and analysis pipeline.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
4d ago

Constitutional Gating and Deterministic Recovery for Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation: Ablations Against a Stateful Adversarial Gatekeeper

The paper evaluates a three‑part control stack— a 5‑Pillar runtime constitution, a 4‑tier swarm (Director, majority vote, Monitor, hard gate), and Cognitive Annealing—for multi‑agent LLM negotiation against an adversarial Gatekeeper. Experiments with Gemini 2.5 Pro agents and Claude Haiku 4.5 show that the constitution and Director improve framing but not reliability, the Monitor and hard gate do not reduce unlocks, and deterministic recovery via atomic purge and a canonical strike successfully resolves deadlocks while keeping call budgets unchanged. The study demonstrates that the stack can recover from deadlocks without additional model cost, though it does not reduce overall call or token usage as initially hypothesized.

By Masaaki Nakatsu (AO, Inc. / OrbLabs AG), Reno Wang (AO, Inc.)
llmsagentssafety
More like this →
arXiv AI
6d ago

Evaluate the Stack, Not the Layer: Do Deterministic and LLM Gates for Agent Actions Fail Independently?

The study evaluates how runtime gates for agent tool calls stack, assuming their errors multiply. Using 1,119 labeled agent actions from three corpora, the authors compare a deterministic rule layer with four LLM judges, measuring the effective number of multiplication-equivalent layers (n_mult). Results show that two judges compose to about 1.2–1.4 layers, while a rule layer plus one judge composes to roughly 1.86–2.09 layers, with variations depending on miss definitions and corpora.

By Chenglin Yang
llmsagents
More like this →