arxiv: 2605.05716 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

More Is Not Always Better: Cross-Component Interference in LLM Agent Scaffolding

Ming Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CL

keywords LLM agentsscaffolding componentscross-component interferencefactorial experimentsubmodularity violationstask-specific optimizationagent performance

0 comments

The pith

Adding more scaffolding components to LLM agents can reduce performance due to cross-component interference.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests the common practice of stacking all available components like planning, tools, memory, self-reflection, and retrieval in LLM agents by exhaustively evaluating every possible subset. It finds that the complete All-In system is outperformed by smaller subsets on HotpotQA and GSM8K, with improvements of 32% and 79% respectively from the best subsets. This shows that components can interact destructively, making maximal configurations suboptimal. The pattern appears across model sizes, with some scale-dependent shifts, and the work fits regression models to quantify main effects and interactions. If correct, this means current defaults for agent construction need replacement by interaction-aware subset selection.

Core claim

A full factorial experiment over all 32 subsets of five components on HotpotQA and GSM8K with Llama-3.1 models at two scales establishes that the All-In agent is consistently suboptimal, surpassed by single-tool or three-component systems, while optimal subset size varies by task and model scale; regression analysis reveals high predictability from main effects alongside 56% submodularity violations that render greedy selection unreliable.

What carries the argument

Cross-component interference, measured as performance degradation from destructive interactions among the five scaffolding components when all are included together.

If this is right

Task-specific selection of component subsets yields higher performance than default full stacks on both question-answering and math benchmarks.
At 70B scale some combinations shift from harmful to helpful compared with 8B, though All-In still trails the best subset.
Main-effects regression predicts subset performance accurately, yet exact Shapley values expose frequent submodularity violations.
A specific three-body synergy among Tool Use, Self-Reflection, and Retrieval appears alongside the interferences.
The interference pattern replicates across model families and remains stable under prompt paraphrasing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Agent construction pipelines could add automated search over component subsets guided by interaction measurements.
The same interference logic may apply to other composite AI systems that combine multiple modules at inference time.
Developers might visualize pairwise and higher-order effects to decide which components to retain for a given task.
Larger-scale models could reduce but not eliminate the need for subset testing if interference persists.

Load-bearing premise

Performance differences across the 32 subsets stem primarily from cross-component interference rather than unmeasured factors like prompt wording or model-specific quirks.

What would settle it

A replication using the same tasks, models, and factorial design that finds the full All-In system matching or exceeding the best subset with comparable statistical significance would falsify the claim of consistent suboptimality.

read the original abstract

LLM agent systems are built by stacking scaffolding components (planning, tools, memory, self-reflection, retrieval) assuming more is better. We study cross-component interference (CCI): degradation when components interact destructively. We run a full factorial experiment over all 2^5=32 subsets of five components on HotpotQA and GSM8K with Llama-3.1-8B/70B (96 conditions, up to 10 seeds). The All-In system is consistently suboptimal: on HotpotQA, a single-tool agent surpasses All-In by 32% (F1 0.233 vs 0.177, p=0.023); on GSM8K, a 3-component subset beats All-In by 79% (0.43 vs 0.24, p=0.010). Optimal component count is task-dependent (k*=1-4) and scale-sensitive: at 70B, combinations that hurt at 8B provide gains, though All-In still trails the best subset. We fit a main-effects regression (R^2=0.916, adj-R^2=0.899, LOOCV=0.872), compute exact Shapley values, and find 183/325 submodularity violations (56.3%), showing greedy selection is unreliable. A three-body synergy among Tool Use, Self-Reflection, and Retrieval (INT_3=+0.175, 95% CI [+0.003,+0.351]) is reported as exploratory. CCI replicates across model families (Qwen2.5) and is robust to prompt paraphrasing. Our findings suggest maximally-equipped agent defaults should be replaced by task-specific subset selection via interaction-aware analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper's full factorial runs show that the complete five-component agent stack is often beaten by smaller subsets, but the drops may trace more to prompt assembly than to inherent component conflicts.

read the letter

The central result is straightforward: on both HotpotQA and GSM8K the all-in combination of planning, tools, memory, reflection, and retrieval underperforms several smaller subsets, sometimes by large margins. A single-tool agent beats the full stack by 32% F1 on HotpotQA, and a three-component mix beats it by 79% on GSM8K. They back this with every one of the 32 subsets, up to ten seeds, significance tests, a main-effects regression that fits well, and Shapley values. That design is the real contribution; it quantifies how often greedy addition fails and shows the optimal subset size changes with task and model scale. The replication on Qwen2.5 and the paraphrasing check add some reassurance that the pattern is not one-off noise. The reported three-body interaction is noted as exploratory and stays within reasonable bounds. The soft spot is the causal story. Each subset uses its own prompt and control loop, so adding components also changes instruction density, ordering, and possible conflicts inside the same context window. The paraphrasing test keeps the integration method fixed, which leaves open whether a cleaner modular prompt scheme would shrink or remove the observed gaps. The paper measures combined system performance cleanly, but it does not yet isolate cross-component interference from implementation choices. This work is aimed at people who build or tune LLM agents and who have been defaulting to stacking every available module. It gives them concrete numbers to question that habit and a method for checking subsets on their own tasks. The empirical core is strong enough that the paper should go to referees; a review would mainly tighten the language around mechanism versus prompt engineering.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that stacking LLM agent scaffolding components (planning, tools, memory, self-reflection, retrieval) is not always beneficial due to cross-component interference (CCI). Through a full 2^5 factorial experiment over all 32 subsets on HotpotQA and GSM8K with Llama-3.1-8B/70B (96 conditions, up to 10 seeds), it shows the All-In system is suboptimal (e.g., single-tool beats All-In by 32% F1 on HotpotQA, p=0.023; 3-component subset beats it by 79% on GSM8K, p=0.010), optimal k* is task- and scale-dependent, a main-effects regression fits with R²=0.916, 56.3% submodularity violations occur, and an exploratory three-body synergy exists, with replication on Qwen2.5 and prompt paraphrasing.

Significance. If the results hold after addressing implementation controls, this would be significant for LLM agent research by providing rigorous empirical counter-evidence to the 'more components are better' default, supported by the comprehensive factorial design, statistical tests, high-R² regression, exact Shapley values, and cross-model replication. These elements offer reproducible, falsifiable insights into component interactions that could guide more efficient agent design.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Experimental Design] Abstract and Experimental Design: The central attribution of subset performance gaps to cross-component interference (CCI) rather than prompt integration artifacts is load-bearing but not fully isolated. Each of the 32 subsets uses a distinct system prompt and agent loop, so differences in instruction density, ordering, and context conflicts could explain degradations (e.g., All-In F1 0.177 vs. single-tool 0.233 on HotpotQA). The noted robustness to paraphrasing and Qwen2.5 replication holds the integration method fixed and does not test alternatives like explicit sectioning or dynamic activation, leaving open whether CCI is the primary driver.
[Regression and Interaction Analysis] Regression and Interaction Analysis: The main-effects regression (R²=0.916, adj-R²=0.899) is presented as capturing the data, yet an exploratory three-body synergy (INT_3=+0.175, 95% CI [+0.003,+0.351]) among Tool Use, Self-Reflection, and Retrieval is reported separately. This raises a question of whether the main-effects model adequately accounts for higher-order interactions or if the submodularity violation count (183/325) depends on regression assumptions that exclude such terms.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] The manuscript would benefit from explicit tables or appendices listing the exact prompt templates and integration code for each of the 32 subsets to support full reproducibility.
[Results] Clarify how the 325 submodularity comparisons are derived (e.g., which subset pairs or marginal contributions) to allow independent verification of the 56.3% violation rate.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope of our claims regarding cross-component interference. We address each major point below with clarifications and note the revisions incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Experimental Design] The central attribution of subset performance gaps to cross-component interference (CCI) rather than prompt integration artifacts is load-bearing but not fully isolated. Each of the 32 subsets uses a distinct system prompt and agent loop, so differences in instruction density, ordering, and context conflicts could explain degradations (e.g., All-In F1 0.177 vs. single-tool 0.233 on HotpotQA). The noted robustness to paraphrasing and Qwen2.5 replication holds the integration method fixed and does not test alternatives like explicit sectioning or dynamic activation, leaving open whether CCI is the primary driver.

Authors: We agree that distinguishing CCI from prompt integration effects is important. The full factorial design varies component presence while holding the core agent loop fixed, enabling attribution of performance changes to specific component additions or removals. Robustness to prompt paraphrasing (Appendix C) shows that performance patterns and rankings persist across reworded instructions, indicating that instruction density or ordering alone does not explain the gaps. The Qwen2.5 replication extends this across model families. We did not evaluate alternative integration methods such as explicit sectioning or dynamic activation. The revised manuscript adds a limitations section acknowledging this and outlining it as future work, while maintaining that the systematic, statistically tested patterns support CCI as a primary driver. revision: partial
Referee: [Regression and Interaction Analysis] The main-effects regression (R²=0.916, adj-R²=0.899) is presented as capturing the data, yet an exploratory three-body synergy (INT_3=+0.175, 95% CI [+0.003,+0.351]) among Tool Use, Self-Reflection, and Retrieval is reported separately. This raises a question of whether the main-effects model adequately accounts for higher-order interactions or if the submodularity violation count (183/325) depends on regression assumptions that exclude such terms.

Authors: The main-effects regression serves as a parsimonious baseline summarizing average component contributions and achieves strong fit (R²=0.916), but we do not claim it models all interactions. The three-body synergy is presented separately as an exploratory result from dedicated higher-order interaction analysis on the observed data. The submodularity violation count (183/325) is computed directly from raw performance values by checking whether marginal gains decrease with set size, independent of any regression. The revised manuscript explicitly states these distinctions in the methods and results sections to prevent misinterpretation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on new factorial experiments and direct measurements

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of running a full 2^5 factorial experiment across 32 component subsets on HotpotQA and GSM8K (96 conditions, up to 10 seeds), directly measuring performance differences (e.g., single-tool vs All-In F1 0.233 vs 0.177), fitting a main-effects regression to those observed results (R^2=0.916), and computing Shapley values and submodularity counts from the same data. No step reduces by construction to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation; the regression and interaction terms summarize the experimental outcomes rather than presuppose them. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper relies on standard assumptions of experimental design and statistical analysis while introducing CCI as an explanatory concept; no major free parameters or invented physical entities are used beyond the regression fit.

free parameters (1)

main-effects regression coefficients
Fitted to the performance data from the 96 experimental conditions to model component contributions.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Performance metrics follow assumptions suitable for linear regression and Shapley value computation
Invoked when reporting R^2=0.916 and exact Shapley values for interaction effects.

invented entities (1)

Cross-Component Interference (CCI) no independent evidence
purpose: To label and explain observed destructive interactions between scaffolding components
New descriptive term introduced based on the factorial experiment results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5614 in / 1558 out tokens · 33604 ms · 2026-05-08T11:44:07.814201+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Anthropic. 2024. The Claude model family. https://www.anthropic.com/claude

2024
[2]

Rick Battle and Teja Gollapudi. 2024. The unreasonable effectiveness of eccentric automatic prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10949

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

Harrison Chase. 2022. Langchain. https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain

2022
[4]

Lu Chen, Siyu Lou, Keyan Zhang, Jin Huang, and Quanshi Zhang. 2023. Harsanyinet: Computing accurate shapley values in a single forward propagation. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

2023
[5]

Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heather Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[6]

Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

2023
[7]

Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, and 1 others. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[8]

Chris Fifty, Ehsan Amid, Zhe Zhao, Tianhe Yu, Rohan Anil, and Chelsea Finn. 2021. Efficiently identifying task groupings for multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

2021
[9]

Fabian Fumagalli, Maximilian Muschalik, Patrick Kolpaczki, Eyke H \"u llermeier, and Barbara Hammer. 2023. SHAP-IQ : Unified approximation of any-order shapley interactions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

2023
[10]

Qiu, and Lili Qiu

Zhiyuan He, Huiqiang Jiang, Zilong Wang, Yuqing Yang, Luna K. Qiu, and Lili Qiu. 2024. Position engineering: Boosting large language models through positional information manipulation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

2024
[11]

Keke Huang, Yimin Shi, Dujian Ding, Yifei Li, Yang Fei, Laks Lakshmanan, and Xiaokui Xiao. 2025. Thriftllm: On cost-effective selection of large language models for classification queries. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 18

2025
[12]

Daniel Jaroslawicz, Brendan Whiting, Parth Shah, and Karime Maamari. 2025. How many instructions can llms follow at once? arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.11538

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

Kapoor and A

Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Zachary S. Siegel, Nitya Nadgir, and Arvind Narayanan. 2024. Ai agents that matter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01502

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines

Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav Santhanam, Sri Vardhamanan, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T. Joshi, Hanna Mober, and 1 others. 2023. Dspy: Compiling declarative language model calls into self-improving pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03714

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[15]

Andrew Lauziere, Jonathan Daugherty, and Taisa Kushner. 2026. A regression framework for understanding prompt component impact on llm performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26830

work page arXiv 2026
[16]

Xiaomin Li, Zhou Yu, Zhiwei Zhang, Xupeng Chen, Ziji Zhang, Yingying Zhuang, Narayanan Sadagopan, and Anurag Beniwal. 2025. When thinking fails: The pitfalls of reasoning for instruction-following in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11423

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2024. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL)

2024
[18]

McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Michael Pieler, Alicia Parrish, Aaron Mueller, Ameya Prabhu, Euan McLean, Aaron Kirtland, Alexis Rofin, Matthew Groh, and 1 others

Ian R. McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Michael Pieler, Alicia Parrish, Aaron Mueller, Ameya Prabhu, Euan McLean, Aaron Kirtland, Alexis Rofin, Matthew Groh, and 1 others. 2023. Inverse scaling: When bigger isn't better. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR)

2023
[19]

Moran Mizrahi, Guy Kaplan, Dan Malkin, Rotem Dror, Dafna Shahaf, and Gabriel Stanovsky. 2024. State of what art? a call for multi-prompt llm evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL)

2024
[20]

Behnam Mohammadi. 2024. Explaining large language models decisions using shapley values. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01332

work page arXiv 2024
[21]

Yunjia Qi, Hao Peng, Xintong Shi, Amy Xin, Xiaozhi Wang, Bin Xu, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. 2026. On the paradoxical interference between instruction-following and task solving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22047

work page arXiv 2026
[22]

Melanie Sclar, Yejin Choi, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Alane Suhr. 2024. Quantifying language models' sensitivity to spurious features in prompt design. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2024
[23]

Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

2023
[24]

Cognitive architectures for language agents, 2024

Theodore R. Sumers, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Thomas L. Griffiths. 2024. Cognitive architectures for language agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02427

work page arXiv 2024
[25]

Qwen Team. 2025. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[26]

Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[27]

Le, and Denny Zhou

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

2022
[28]

Bosi Wen, Pei Ke, Xiaotao Gu, Lindong Wu, Hao Huang, Jinfeng Zhou, Wenchuan Li, Bin Hu, Wen Gao, Jiaxin Xu, Yiming Liu, Jie Tang, Hongning Wang, and Minlie Huang. 2024. Benchmarking complex instruction-following with multiple constraints composition. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

2024
[29]

Shan Xie, Man Luo, Chadly Daniel Stern, Mengnan Du, and Lu Cheng. 2024. Demoshapley: Valuation of demonstrations for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07523

work page arXiv 2024
[30]

Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen

Chengrun Yang, Xuezhi Wang, Yifeng Lu, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V. Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen. 2024. Large language models as optimizers. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2024
[31]

Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D

Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

2018
[32]

Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2023
[33]

Tianhe Yu, Saurabh Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Chelsea Finn. 2020. Gradient surgery for multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

2020
[34]

Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Joseph Boen, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Carlos Guestrin, and James Zou. 2024. Textgrad: Automatic ``differentiation'' via text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07496

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024