A Vocabulary for Multi-Agent Automated Research Systems
Abstract
We introduce a vocabulary for automated research systems built from one or more agents to make their design choices easier to describe and compare. The vocabulary specifies 1) who the agents are, 2) what operations are available in the system, 3) who may invoke them, 4) how agents communicate, 5) what information is visible within and across runs, 6) how the next action is chosen, 7) how a run begins, and 8) how outputs are evaluated. A trajectory records one run from the input task to the returned artifact. Because agents, operations, and initialization may be stochastic, repeated runs on the same task induce a distribution over trajectories rather than a single behavior. Our vocabulary turns structural design questions, such as when agents should communicate, gain or lose a capability, or carry information across runs, into testable choices. It also makes the evaluator a component of the system, since reported gains depend on how closely the proxy score matches true quality. That separation also splits the vague complaint that these systems lack taste into two failures with different solutions. Generative taste is the rate at which a system proposes novel trajectories before any score is observed, and evaluative taste is the gap between the proxy score and the quality it should match. We instantiate the vocabulary on recent autoresearch systems to illustrate that it covers designs that differ widely in structure.
Community
"These systems lack taste" was the complaint I kept hearing, and making. I think it is two complaints wearing one word.
I was working on a project, and I kept adding agents until the runs got good, then the same setup failed for another project. I could not say which agent carried it, or which one I could have "fired", so i started working on this terminology a couple of months ago, and now i think it have it.
It also helped me to come up with some notions for research taste. I call one a Generative taste which is the rate at which a system proposes novel trajectories before any score is observed. The other is Evaluative taste which is the gap between the proxy score and the quality it should match. To me, these are separate as a stricter judge will not make proposals less derivative, and a better generator will not "unrig" a gamed scoreboard.
Note that this is a specification language, not a benchmark. I also have 10 case studies and added them here: https://bardiyaak.github.io/multi-agent-research-vocabulary/
I welcome any pushback and conversation around this. If you think I'm missing something, please let me know.
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2607.22682 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper