CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 09, 2026

How Much LLM Does a Self-Revising Agent Actually Need?

arXiv AI Archived Apr 09, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.07236v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent LLM-based agents often place world modeling, planning, and reflection inside a single language model loop. This can produce capable behavior, but it makes a basic scientific question difficult to answer: which part of the agent's competence actually comes from the LLM, and which part comes from explicit structure around it? We study this question not by claiming a general answer, but by making it empirically tractable. We introduce a declare

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 8 Apr 2026] How Much LLM Does a Self-Revising Agent Actually Need? Seongwoo Jeong, Seonil Son Recent LLM-based agents often place world modeling, planning, and reflection inside a single language model loop. This can produce capable behavior, but it makes a basic scientific question difficult to answer: which part of the agent's competence actually comes from the LLM, and which part comes from explicit structure around it? We study this question not by claiming a general answer, but by making it empirically tractable. We introduce a declared reflective runtime protocol that externalizes agent state, confidence signals, guarded actions, and hypothetical transitions into inspectable runtime structure. We instantiate this protocol in a declarative runtime and evaluate it on noisy Collaborative Battleship [4] using four progressively structured agents over 54 games (18 boards \times 3 seeds). The resulting decomposition isolates four components: posterior belief tracking, explicit world-model planning, symbolic in-episode reflection, and sparse LLM-based revision. Across this decomposition, explicit world-model planning improves substantially over a greedy posterior-following baseline (+24.1pp win rate, +0.017 F1). Symbolic reflection operates as a real runtime mechanism -- with prediction tracking, confidence gating, and guarded revision actions -- even though its current revision presets are not yet net-positive in aggregate. Adding conditional LLM revision at about 4.3\% of turns yields only a small and non-monotonic change: average F1 rises slightly (+0.005) while win rate drops (31\rightarrow29 out of 54). These results suggest a methodological contribution rather than a leaderboard claim: externalizing reflection turns otherwise latent agent behavior into inspectable runtime structure, allowing the marginal role of LLM intervention to be studied directly. Comments: WIP Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) Cite as: arXiv:2604.07236 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.07236v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.07236 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Seonil Son [view email] [v1] Wed, 8 Apr 2026 16:02:04 UTC (60 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 09, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 09, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗