Nearchos Potamitis

Lars Klein, Nearchos Potamitis, Roland Aydin et al.

While numerous frameworks have been developed to enhance the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs), there is a scarcity of methods that effectively balance the trade-off between cost and quality. In this paper, we introduce Fleet of Agents (FoA), a novel and intuitive yet principled framework utilizing LLMs as agents to navigate through dynamic tree searches, employing a genetic-type particle filtering approach. FoA spawns a multitude of agents, each exploring the search space autonomously, followed by a selection phase where resampling based on a heuristic value function optimizes the balance between exploration and exploitation. This mechanism enables dynamic branching, adapting the exploration strategy based on discovered solutions. We conduct extensive experiments on three benchmark tasks, ``Game of 24'', ``Mini-Crosswords'', and ``WebShop'', utilizing four different LLMs, ``GPT-3.5'', ``GPT-4'', ``LLaMA3.2-11B'', and ``LLaMA3.2-90B''. On average across all tasks and LLMs, FoA obtains a quality improvement of ~5% while requiring only ~40% of the cost of previous SOTA methods. Notably, our analyses reveal that (1) FoA achieves the best cost-quality trade-off among all benchmarked methods and (2) FoA + LLaMA3.2-11B surpasses the Llama3.2-90B model. FoA is publicly available at https://github.com/au-clan/FoA.

Nearchos Potamitis, Akhil Arora

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have catalyzed the development of general-purpose autonomous agents, demonstrating remarkable performance in complex reasoning tasks across various domains. This surge has spurred the evolution of a plethora of prompt-based reasoning frameworks. A recent focus has been on iterative reasoning strategies that refine outputs through self-evaluation and verbalized feedback. However, these strategies require additional computational complexity to enable models to recognize and correct their mistakes, leading to a significant increase in their cost. In this work, we introduce the concept of ``retrials without feedback'', an embarrassingly simple yet powerful mechanism for enhancing reasoning frameworks by allowing LLMs to retry problem-solving attempts upon identifying incorrect answers. Unlike conventional iterative refinement methods, our method does not require explicit self-reflection or verbalized feedback, simplifying the refinement process. Our findings indicate that simpler retrial-based approaches often outperform more sophisticated reasoning frameworks, suggesting that the benefits of complex methods may not always justify their computational costs. By challenging the prevailing assumption that more intricate reasoning strategies inherently lead to better performance, our work offers new insights into how simpler, more efficient approaches can achieve optimal results. So, are retrials all you need?