mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Asymmetric Capacity Allocation in Self-Refinement Pipelines

arXiv 2608.21345 ↗First posted 21 Aug 2026cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Self-refinement, typically structured as generation, critique, and revision, is a widely adopted paradigm for improving LLM generation and serves as a core mechanism in many LLM agents. While the three stages involve different cognitive demands, most existing approaches conveniently treat the model size as an implementation detail rather than a subject of study, which may lead to a waste of resources. Little work has systematically examined how model size affects each stage or whether effective self-refinement requires equally capable models for generation, critique, and revision. We present the first stage-wise model size study of the self-refinement pipeline on 5 benchmarks from different domains using 6 model sizes of Qwen3 and 4 model sizes of Gemma 3. We conclude that larger generators and refiners generally improve the pipeline, whereas an undersized refiner can even harm performance. Second, performance is highly insensitive to the size of the critic, although including even a small critic consistently outperforms omitting critique altogether. Our findings demonstrate that model capacity should not be allocated uniformly across self-refinement pipelines. Instead, different stages exhibit distinct size scaling characteristics, providing practical guidance for designing more computationally efficient multi-stage language model systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 22 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.

Builds on

22 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Generalizability of Large Language Model-Based Agents: A Comprehensive Survey19 Sep
  2. 2024Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey5 Feb

Other references · 20

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  3. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  4. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
  5. 2021Switch Transformers: Scaling to Trillion Parameter Models with Simple and Efficient Sparsitycited by 3,073
  6. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
  7. 2020GShard: Scaling Giant Models with Conditional Computation and Automatic Shardingcited by 1,631
  8. 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,292
  9. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,049
  10. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 988
  11. 2023FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performancecited by 853
  12. 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 783
8 more
  1. 2024RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Datacited by 682
  2. 2016A Corpus and Evaluation Framework for Deeper Understanding of Commonsense Storiescited by 417
  3. 2024Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speakingcited by 301
  4. 2025ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoningcited by 201
  5. 2023An LLM Compiler for Parallel Function Callingcited by 179
  6. 2024NATURAL PLAN: Benchmarking LLMs on Natural Language Planningcited by 128
  7. 2025RefineCoder: Iterative Improving of Large Language Models via Adaptive Critique Refinement for Code Generationcited by 8
  8. 2025Boosting Accuracy and Efficiency of Budget Forcing in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Reasoningcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Evolving LLMs' Self-Refinement Capability via Synergistic Training-Inference Optimization
  2. 2026Understanding the Challenges in Iterative Generative Optimization with LLMs
  3. 2026The Scaling Laws of Skills in LLM Agent Systems
  4. 2025Can 1B LLM Surpass 405B LLM? Rethinking Compute-Optimal Test-Time Scaling
  5. 2026Reviewer Capability Governs Rejection Targeting, Not Repair Skill: Evidence from LLM Execute-Review-Revise Pipelines
  6. 2026Measuring the Inference Energy Efficiency of Open-Weight LLMs across Benchmarks, Reasoning Modes, and Hardware
  7. 2026Self-Harness: Harnesses That Improve Themselves
  8. 2026EvalBuilder: Can LLMs Build Efficient Benchmarks?