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