Semantic Feature Analysis: Improving Agents Without Searching Over Rollouts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Ambiguity is an inherent property of natural-language agent specifications. When a system prompt leaves behaviour underdetermined, identical inputs follow divergent execution paths and produce inconsistent outcomes. The standard remedy is prompt optimisation: propose candidate prompts, run the agent to score them, and keep the best. This loop pays for the agent twice: once to generate candidates and again to rank them. On a tool-using agent whose rollouts cost dollars and minutes, the ranking cost dominates and budget-constrained optimisers routinely fail to find improvements. We present Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA), a pipeline that repairs agent specifications without running any search. SFA reads execution traces the agent has already produced, clusters the outputs of each workflow node, decomposes them into semantic feature classes using an extended subject-verb-object schema, ranks those features by their contribution to outcome separation using a decision tree, and injects the surviving features as corrective statements into the affected node's system prompt. Because it never ranks candidate prompts, it never spends a rollout on selection. We evaluate SFA against five prompt optimisers (GEPA, MIPROv2, SIMBA, BootstrapFewShot with random search, InferRules) and a single-reflection control, budget-matched in dollars at three budget levels across four benchmarks (IF-Bench, HotpotQA, HoVer, and GAIA). SFA consistently improves over the unmodified agent across benchmarks and budget levels, with the largest gains where rollouts are most expensive. On GAIA, where budget-constrained optimisers cannot afford to score even one candidate, SFA improves accuracy while other arms return their seed unchanged.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Apr 2026.
Builds on
20 of 35 references.
References · 20
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
- 2023Large Language Modelscited by 774
- 2024Optimizing Instructions and Demonstrations for Multi-Stage Language Model Programscited by 270
8 more
- 2020HoVer: A Dataset for Many-Hop Fact Extraction And Claim Verificationcited by 199
- 2024Guiding LLMs The Right Way: Fast, Non-Invasive Constrained Generationcited by 99
- 2025Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Survey of Architectures, Applications, and Future Directionscited by 46
- 2022AI-Augmented Business Process Management Systems: A Research Manifestocited by 27
- 2025Taming Uncertainty via Automation: Observing, Analyzing, and Optimizing Agentic AI Systemscited by 12
- 2025Agentic AI Process Observability: Discovering Behavioral Variabilitycited by 10
- 2025A Taxonomy of Prompt Defects in LLM Systemscited by 7
- 2025Automated Repair of Ambiguous Problem Descriptions for LLM-Based Code Generationcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.