# An Exact Generate - Transform Decomposition of Small-LLM Team Scaling Across Orchestration Architectures

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.36104 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36104/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 18 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.02561/) (2023)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [Multi-agent Architecture Search via Agentic Supernet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04180/) (2025)
- [MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01935/) (2025)
- [Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.08296/) (2025)
- [LLMs Can Generate a Better Answer by Aggregating Their Own Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04104/) (2025)
- [When Agents Disagree: The Selection Bottleneck in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.20324/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Replacing one LLM agent with a collaborating team can raise accuracy, but whether scaling the team helps, and which architecture to scale, is unclear. Sweeping eight agent orchestration architectures across five instruction-tuned 7-9B models, five short-answer benchmarks, and an executable-code benchmark up to 30 calls, we find that the returns to team scaling are sharply task-dependent: from three to thirty calls accuracy rises by up to 17 points on the two arithmetic word-problem benchmarks (GSM8K, GSMHard) but by at most four on ARC, GPQA, and MMLU, for every architecture, a split the usual task-averaged number conceals. Proposer-Critic captures the arithmetic gains, scaling steepest and, in aggregate, surpassing every other architecture at the largest budget (item-clustered intervals exclude zero), though it ranks among the weakest elsewhere, and no architecture wins across tasks. We explain these trajectories with an exact generate-transform decomposition. Partitioning any workflow into proposal coverage and a downstream transform, any accuracy change splits exactly into an extensive coverage dividend and an intensive transformation change. The decomposition diagnoses each task: arithmetic offers coverage headroom that a critic-guided transform converts, whereas the multiple-choice benchmarks either saturate in coverage or fail to convert it, and on open-ended code generative recovery nearly vanishes so accuracy tracks coverage. At equal call budgets token cost still varies 2.1x. Extra calls therefore create candidate opportunity that only some architectures, on some tasks, convert. Team scaling is a task- and architecture-specific bet, not a uniform lever.