Automated Design of Agentic Systems: A Survey of Algorithms for Searching, Optimizing, and Evolving LLM Agents, Workflows, and Prompts
Open accessAbstract
Building agentic systems around frozen foundation models remains largely a craft: chains of thought, reflection loops, tool calls, and multi-agent topologies are assembled by hand. Automated Design of Agentic Systems (ADAS) recasts that craft as a search problem. In this paper we survey the ADAS literature from 2022 to 2026 through a unifying four-axis framework that re-casts the three classical pillars of neural architecture search (NAS) in an agentic setting: the optimization target (the prompt, the parameters of a compound system, the workflow topology, a modular cell, or full code), the search strategy (LLM-as-optimizer, textual gradients, evolutionary and quality-diversity search, MCTS, Bayesian or surrogate methods, and RL/DPO), the representation (a natural-language string, a modular DSL, a graph, or code), and the feedback signal (a scalar, a preference, a natural-language critique, a surrogate, or novelty). We classify thirty-three methods along these axes, spanning 2022 to 2026 and including the recent surge of 2026 work, trace two structural tensions—expressiveness versus searchability and feedback richness versus credit assignment—and examine evaluation practice, including cost, transfer, contamination, and reward hacking. We conclude with the safety problems that recursive self-improvement makes concrete and the open directions they impose.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent work has increasingly shifted from manually designing agentic systems toward automatically improving them from execution feedback.
“Recent work has increasingly shifted from manually designing agentic systems toward automatically improving them from execution feedback (Madžar & Mekterović, 2026;Gao et al., 2026;Yue et al., 2026;Ning et al., 2026).”
From ADIAS: Automated Design of Interactive Agentic Systems (2026) · cites this paper as Madžar & Mekterović, 2026
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ADIAS: Automated Design of Interactive Agentic Systems
Jiang, L., Tang, B., Goetz, S., & Guo, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.06410
- Authors
- Madžar, M., & Mekterović, I.
- ORCID
- Mekterović, Igor
- Venue
- Preprints.org
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2026-06-02
- OpenAlex
- W7163204889
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- LLM agents, neural architecture search, prompt optimization, agent workflows, Bayesian optimization, surrogate models, reinforcement learning, DPO
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review