The Tyranny of Possibilities in the Design of Task-Oriented LLM Systems: A Scoping Survey
Authors: Dhruv Dhamani, Mary Lou Maher
Abstract: This scoping survey focuses on our current understanding of the design space for task-oriented LLM systems and elaborates on definitions and relationships among the available design parameters. The paper begins by defining a minimal task-oriented LLM system and exploring the design space of such systems through a thought experiment contemplating the performance of diverse LLM system configurations (involving single LLMs, single LLM-based agents, and multiple LLM-based agent systems) on a complex software development task and hypothesizes the results. We discuss a pattern in our results and formulate them into three conjectures. While these conjectures may be partly based on faulty assumptions, they provide a starting point for future research. The paper then surveys a select few design parameters: covering and organizing research in LLM augmentation, prompting techniques, and uncertainty estimation, and discussing their significance. The paper notes the lack of focus on computational and energy efficiency in evaluating research in these areas. Our survey findings provide a basis for developing the concept of linear and non-linear contexts, which we define and use to enable an agent-centric projection of prompting techniques providing a lens through which prompting techniques can be viewed as multi-agent systems. The paper discusses the implications of this lens, for the cross-pollination of research between LLM prompting and LLM-based multi-agent systems; and also, for the generation of synthetic training data based on existing prompting techniques in research. In all, the scoping survey presents seven conjectures that can help guide future research efforts.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.