From Standalone LLMs to Integrated Intelligence: A Survey of Compound Al Systems
Open accessAbstract
Compound AI Systems (CAIS) are an emerging paradigm that integrates large language models (LLMs) with external components, including retrievers, agents, tools, and orchestrators, to overcome the limitations of standalone models in tasks requiring memory, reasoning, real-time grounding, and multimodal understanding. These systems enable more capable and context-aware behaviors by composing multiple specialized modules into cohesive workflows. Despite growing adoption in both academia and industry, the CAIS landscape remains fragmented and lacks a unified framework for analysis, taxonomy, and evaluation. In this survey, we define the concept of CAIS, propose a multi-dimensional taxonomy based on component roles and orchestration strategies, and analyze four foundational paradigms: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), LLM Agents, Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), and Orchestration. We review representative systems, compare design trade-offs, and summarize evaluation methodologies across these paradigms. Finally, we identify key challenges - including scalability, interoperability, benchmarking, and coordination - and outline promising directions for future research. This survey aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a comprehensive foundation for understanding, developing, and advancing the next generation of system-level artificial intelligence.
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?
LLM integration enhanced capabilities in planning, specialization, and task decomposition through frameworks like DyLAN, MAD, and MetaGPT.
“Function calling enabled sophisticated multi-agent systems where multiple LLM agents collaborate through coordinated tool use and task decomposition, with MAS leveraging collective intelligence through parallel processing, information sharing, and adaptive role assignment, while LLM integration enhanced capabilities in planning, specialization, and task decomposition through frameworks like DyLAN,”
From A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [140]
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models
Mei, L., Yao, J., Ge, Y., Wang, Y., Bi, B., Cai, Y., Liu, J., Li, M., Li, Z.-Z., Zhang, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13334 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chen, J., Ye, J., & Wang, G.
- Affiliations
- New Jersey Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.04565
- OpenAlex
- W4416076380
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, LLM agents, multimodal large language models, system orchestration, interoperability, benchmarking, scalability
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