Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Lost in Delegation: Studying the Effectiveness of Task Orchestration in Generative Search

Tamara Stojanovska, Elisabeth Kirsten, Leon Swazinna, Muhammad Bilal ZafarPublished Nov 12, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

LLMs have quickly evolved from models used in isolation to agentic systems that delegate tasks to external tools and other LLMs to solve complex assignments. This agentic augmentation has led to impressive capability gains. However, when and how delegation improves performance remains poorly understood. For example, it is unclear whether delegation helps when tasks involve post-cutoff information that the orchestrating LLM cannot reliably resolve from its own knowledge. In this work, we use purpose-built datasets with pre- and post-cutoff splits to compare various delegation modes. We find that delegation provides no consistent accuracy improvement over non-delegated setups, with effects varying across models and tasks. When tasks involve knowledge unavailable to the orchestrator, delegation can substantially degrade accuracy, while direct tool use with the same LLM performs much better. Our analysis identifies distorted delegated queries, inefficient tool use, and failures to preserve and use information between agents as recurring failure modes. These findings suggest that effective orchestration requires both well-calibrated delegation decisions and effective exchange of information between agents.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
LLMs have quickly evolved from models used in isolation to agentic systems that delegate tasks to external tools and other LLMs to solve complex assignments.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Nov 14, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use

Methods

Transformer, Agentic systems

Domains

Large Language Models, AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.