Learning to Configure Agentic AI Systems
Organizations: School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA
Abstract
Configuring LLM-based agent systems involves choosing workflows, tools, token budgets, and prompts from a large combinatorial design space, and is typically handled today by fixed templates or hand-tuned heuristics that apply the same configuration regardless of query difficulty, leading to brittle behavior and wasted compute. To address this, we formulate agent configuration as a semi-Markov decision process (SMDP) where each configuration acts as a temporally extended option that determines how an agent system processes a query, and introduce introduce ARC (Agentic Resource & Configuration learner), a lightweight hierarchical policy that dynamically selects query-specific agent configurations. Across reasoning, tool-use, and agentic benchmarks, ARC consistently improves over budget-matched tool-augmented LLMs, increasing average reasoning accuracy by 31.3%, tool-use accuracy by 13.95%, and doubling τ-Bench (Airline) Pass^1 success from 9.0% to 18.0%. These results demonstrate that learning per-query agent configurations is a powerful alternative to "one size fits all" designs.
Figures & tables
| Reasoning Capability | Tool-Use Capability | |||||||
| Method | Model | GSM8k | DROP | MedQA | Avg / | HotpotQA | GAIA | Avg / |
| Base Model w/ Tools * | Qwen | 37.8% | 36.4% | 49.1% | 41.1% | 10.1% | 2.0% | 6.1% |
| Gemini | 62.3% | 45.9% | 10.0% | 39.4% | 18.8% | 3.0% | 10.9% | |
| Grid Search | Qwen | 74.0% | 54.3% | 53.1% | 60.5% ( ) | 27.9% | 1.0% | 14.45% ( ) |
| Greedy Search | Qwen | 78.2% | 57.5% | 54.9% | 63.5% ( ) | 28.6% | 3.0% | 15.8% ( ) |
| AutoGen | Qwen | 74.8% | 58.0% | 70.5% | 67.8% ( ) | 34.1% | 1.0% | 17.55% ( ) |
| Airline Task | |||
| Method | Pass^1 | Pass^2 | Pass^3 |
| Base Model * | 9.0% | 4.5% | 1.5% |
| DSPy | 3.0% | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| ARC w/o SFT | 16.0% | 7.5% | 3.0% |
| ARC | 18.0% | 11.0% | 6.5% |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Embedder | Mode | ARI | Cls. Acc | Complexity | Decision | Overall | Time (s) |
| sentence-t5-base (768D) | native | 0.5603 0.1019 | 0.8733 0.0048 | 0.9261 0.0099 | 0.7221 0.0070 | 0.7704 0.0305 | 38.39 1.24 |
| sentence-t5-base (768D) | projected | 0.4867 0.1017 | 0.8635 0.0084 | 0.9189 0.0109 | 0.7138 0.0018 | 0.7457 0.0229 | 37.56 0.89 |
| MetaCLIP-H14 (1024D) | native | 0.4074 0.0525 | 0.8514 0.0043 | 0.8944 0.0112 | 0.7198 0.0139 | 0.7183 0.0197 | 44.04 1.07 |
| MetaCLIP-2-Worldwide-L14 (768D) | native | 0.3470 | 0.8553 | 0.9131 | 0.7451 | 0.7151 | 43.91 |
| MetaCLIP-2-Worldwide-L14 (768D) | projected | 0.3272 | 0.8470 | 0.9114 | 0.7245 | 0.7025 | 49.20 |
| Jina-CLIP-v2 | projected | 0.3736 0.0415 | 0.8476 0.0028 | 0.8833 0.0124 | 0.6798 0.0027 | 0.6961 0.0129 | 236.38 2.23 |
| Diversity | Quality | ||||||||
| Model | Size | Dataset | Unique | Cover | Sem. | Coher. | Spec. | Clar. | Score |
| GPT-5.2 | Closed | gsm8k | 0.18 | 0.83 | 0.08 | 8.76 | 0.24 | 5.50 | 0.48 |
| GPT-5.2 | Closed | medqa | 0.24 | 0.67 | 0.19 | 8.94 | 0.26 | 5.50 | 0.49 |
| GPT-5.2 | Closed | gaia | 0.19 | 0.83 | 0.10 | 8.56 | 0.25 | 5.50 | 0.48 |
| GPT-5.2 | Closed | hotpotqa | 0.17 | 0.83 | 0.05 | 8.88 | 0.27 | 5.50 | 0.48 |
| GPT-5.2 | Closed | aime25 | 0.15 | 0.83 | 0.18 | 8.81 | 0.23 | 5.50 | 0.49 |
LLM Agent Workflow Optimization
LLM agent workflow optimization studies how to design and run multi-step agents for better task success, reliability, latency, and cost.
See all 256 papers