ā† Back to Docs

ACADEMIC PAPER OUTLINE GENERALIZED VARIABLES BRAINDUMP 20250719 gem3

Documentation for ACADEMIC_PAPER_OUTLINE_GENERALIZED_VARIABLES_BRAINDUMP_20250719_gem3 from the Dspex repository.

Of course. This is a fantastic, incredibly detailed outline. It’s already at the level of a near-complete paper draft. My take will be less about “fixing” it and more about reframing it to elevate its core novelty, drawing from the deeper context provided by the DSPex and foundation implementation details.

The original outline is excellent but presents the idea from a traditional ML/LM programming perspective (“generalized variables,” “optimization framework”). However, the provided implementation context (Jido agents, MABEAM coordination, CognitiveFloat as an agent) reveals a far more radical and powerful story.

My take is to lean into this. The true innovation isn’t just sharing parameters; it’s reframing parameters as intelligent, autonomous agents themselves. This moves the concept from a clever optimization trick to a new architectural paradigm for AI systems.

Here is my take, structured as a rewrite of your outline to reflect this more ambitious, agent-centric thesis.

My Take: A Reframed Paper Outline

Core Thesis Shift

  • From: “Generalized Variables” that are passively optimized across modules.
  • To: “Cognitive Variables”: Parameters as first-class, intelligent, autonomous agents that actively coordinate, negotiate, and adapt their state to optimize a system of other agents.

This reframing turns a static optimization problem into a dynamic, self-organizing multi-agent system (MAS).

Title Ideas (Reframed)

  • Cognitive Variables: Parameters as Agents in Compositional AI Systems (Direct and powerful)
  • From Parameters to Protagonists: Agent-based Variables for Coordinating LM Programs
  • The Society of Mind Revisited: Self-Organizing LM Programs with Cognitive Variables
  • DSPex: A Multi-Agent Framework for Programming and Optimizing Language Models

Abstract (Rewritten)

Language model (LM) programming frameworks like DSPy have enabled complex, compositional AI systems. However, they treat modules as isolated silos, optimizing their internal parameters (e.g., prompts, few-shot examples) independently. This prevents the system from developing and optimizing shared, global behaviors like a consistent “reasoning style” or “conservativeness.”

We introduce Cognitive Variables: a paradigm shift where system parameters are no longer static values but are themselves intelligent, autonomous agents. A Temperature variable, for instance, is not just a float; it’s an agent that monitors system performance, receives feedback, and actively coordinates its value with multiple LM-based agents.

Our core contributions are:

  1. A formalization of Cognitive Variables as stateful agents with policies for adaptation and coordination.
  2. A framework where LM modules are “variable-governed agents” that subscribe to and provide feedback to these Cognitive Variable agents.
  3. A novel optimization approach, Agent-Based Coordinated Optimization (ABCO), an evolution of SIMBA, which treats optimization as a learning problem within a multi-agent system.

Implemented in our Elixir-based framework, DSPex, this agent-centric approach demonstrates a 23-47% performance improvement on complex, multi-stage benchmarks. By treating parameters as active participants, we unlock a new frontier in building robust, adaptive, and self-organizing AI systems.

1. Introduction

Hook: “We design AI systems with components that ‘reason’ and ‘predict’. What if the parameters that govern them, like ‘creativity’ or ‘verbosity’, could also reason, negotiate, and learn?”

Problem Statement:

  • Compositional AI is powerful but creates “coordination debt.” Modules optimize for local goals, leading to system-level brittleness.
  • Global behaviors (e.g., a medical system’s overall “caution level”) are currently managed by crude, static hyperparameters, not as dynamic, first-class citizens of the system.
  • Example: A code generation pipeline where the “verbosity” of the planning module and the “strictness” of the testing module are optimized independently, leading to mismatches.

Key Insight (The New Thesis):

  • The problem isn’t just about sharing parameters; it’s about active coordination.
  • We can achieve this by elevating parameters from passive data to active, intelligent Cognitive Variable agents.
  • The system becomes a dynamic multi-agent society of “task agents” (your modules) and “behavior agents” (our variables), communicating and co-adapting.

Contributions:

  1. Formalization of Cognitive Variables as autonomous agents.
  2. An agent-based communication protocol for cross-component coordination and feedback.
  3. ABCO: An agent-based learning framework for optimizing the policies of Cognitive Variables.
  4. A taxonomy of Cognitive Variable agents (Continuous, Discrete, and Module-Type Selection Agents).
  5. DSPex, a full-stack implementation proving the paradigm’s feasibility using an agent-native architecture (Elixir/Jido).
  6. Empirical validation showing superior performance and adaptability.

2.1 LM Programming

  • (Same as original, but the “Gap” is sharper)
  • Gap: Current frameworks follow a static, top-down “program/optimizer” model. They lack a mechanism for dynamic, bottom-up, self-organizing behavior.

2.2 Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) & Coordination

  • New Section: This is now a primary field of related work.
  • Cite work on agent communication languages (ACLs), contract nets, market-based coordination, and emergent behavior.
  • Difference: We are applying MAS principles not to high-level task distribution, but to the fine-grained, low-level problem of parameter governance. This is a novel application domain for MAS.

2.3 Parameter Sharing & Hyperparameter Optimization (HPO)

  • (Same as original, but the “Difference” is profound)
  • Difference: HPO finds a static optimal value. Our Cognitive Variables continuously adapt their value at runtime based on real-time feedback. They are online, not offline. They don’t just have a value; they have a policy.

3. The Cognitive Variable Paradigm: A Formalism

3.1 Definitions

Definition 1 (Cognitive Variable Agent): A Cognitive Variable v is an autonomous agent defined by the tuple (S, A, P, F):

  • S: The internal State (e.g., current_value, domain, constraints, optimization_history, momentum_velocity).
  • A: A set of Actions it can perform (e.g., update_value, request_feedback, negotiate_change, coordinate_agents).
  • P: An internal Policy Ļ€: S -> A that governs its behavior (e.g., when to explore, when to exploit, how to react to feedback).
  • F: A Feedback Interface for receiving performance metrics from other agents.

Definition 2 (Variable-Governed Agent (VGA)): A traditional LM module M is reframed as a VGA which:

  • Subscribes to a set of Cognitive Variables V.
  • Receives signals (e.g., value_update) from its subscribed variables.
  • Emits feedback signals (e.g., performance_metric, semantic_gradient) back to the variables after execution.

Definition 3 (Cognitive AI Program): A program P is a multi-agent system consisting of a set of VGAs {Mįµ¢} and Cognitive Variables {vā±¼} communicating via a shared signal bus.

4. The Agent-Based Coordination Framework (DSPex)

4.1 Signal-Based Communication and Tracing

Key Innovation: Execution is not a monolithic trace; it’s a “conversation” between agents. Traces are event streams of inter-agent signals.

# Example Signal Trace
[
  {timestamp, :signal, from: :user, to: :qa_agent, type: :process_question, ...},
  {timestamp, :signal, from: :qa_agent, to: :creativity_agent, type: :request_value},
  {timestamp, :signal, from: :creativity_agent, to: :qa_agent, type: :value_response, value: 0.8},
  {timestamp, :signal, from: :qa_agent, to: :llm_service, ...},
  {timestamp, :signal, from: :qa_agent, to: :creativity_agent, type: :performance_feedback, score: 0.92},
  {timestamp, :signal, from: :creativity_agent, to: self(), type: :internal_policy_update}
]

4.2 Feedback as a Sensor for Variables

Challenge: How does a “creativity” agent know if it’s doing a good job? Solution: The feedback mechanism is its primary sensor.

  • Direct Feedback: Task-specific metrics (F1, BLEU).
  • Semantic Feedback: Using an LLM to “grade” the output (e.g., “was this output too verbose?”). This becomes a SemanticFeedbackSensor for the VerbosityAgent.
  • Gradient Estimation: Finite differences or semantic approximation are not just optimization techniques; they are actions (estimate_gradient) the variable agent performs to sense its environment.

5. ABCO: Agent-Based Coordinated Optimization

5.1 Optimization as a Multi-Agent Learning Problem

We are not “optimizing a program.” We are teaching a society of Cognitive Variable agents to learn better policies.

5.2 The ABCO Loop (Evolution of SIMBA)

  1. Sense (Sample): Sample the problem space (data points) to create opportunities for the system to act.
  2. Act (Execute): The society of agents (VGAs and Cognitive Variables) collaborate to process the input.
  3. Evaluate & Attribute (Feedback): A global metric function evaluates the final output. Credit (or blame) is attributed back to the participating agents via feedback signals.
  4. Learn (Mutate & Bootstrap):
    • Mutate: Each Cognitive Variable agent updates its internal policy based on the feedback it received. This is where “intelligent mutation” happensā€”it’s not random; it’s policy learning (e.g., updating velocity in a CognitiveFloat agent).
    • Bootstrap: Find high-performing interaction traces (conversations) and store them as “Coordinated Experience Replay.” These examples are used to warm-start or fine-tune agent policies, especially for new agents.

6. Experimental Evaluation

6.1 Benchmark Tasks

(Same tasks, but framed as agent systems)

  1. Multi-Stage QA: A pipeline of KeywordAgent, SearchAgent, and AnswerAgent, all governed by a shared SearchDepthAgent and ConfidenceThresholdAgent.
  2. …and so on for the other tasks.

6.2 Baselines

  • DSPy (Siloed Optimization): The direct competitor.
  • Static Global Parameters (Naive Sharing): The simplest alternative.
  • Centralized HPO (Grid/Random Search): Represents the traditional, offline approach.

6.3 Research Questions (Reframed)

RQ1: Does an agent-based, self-organizing parameter system outperform traditional siloed or static optimization? RQ2: Can Cognitive Variables adapt their behavior at runtime to changes in data distribution? (A new, powerful RQ this framing allows). RQ3: What coordination patterns emerge between variable agents and task agents?

7. Discussion

7.1 Theoretical Implications

  • A New AI Architecture: Proposing a shift from hierarchical program control to decentralized, self-organizing agent societies.
  • Connection to MAS: This is no longer a footnote; it’s a core theoretical foundation.
  • Connection to Economic Coordination: The foundation code mentions economics. This is a huge idea. “What if variables bid for influence based on their expected contribution to a task?” This can be discussed as a powerful extension.

7.2 Practical Implications

  • System Design: Encourages designers to think about a system’s behavioral dynamics, not just its static structure.
  • Debugging & Observability: Moves from “inspecting a trace” to “observing a society.” New tools are needed to visualize agent conversations and emergent behaviors.

8. Conclusion

Summary: We reframed the problem of cross-module optimization by moving from passive “generalized variables” to active, intelligent Cognitive Variable agents. This agent-centric paradigm, implemented in DSPex, transforms LM programs into self-organizing multi-agent systems that learn to coordinate their own behavior.

Key Takeaway: “The next leap in AI system design may not come from bigger models or better algorithms, but from new architectures that allow all componentsā€”even the parameters themselvesā€”to become intelligent, adaptive, and cooperative agents.”