A multi-model language service must route each request while preserving workload-level budgets for compute, latency, memory, or monetary cost. Two features make this problem materially harder than static model selection. Prompt representations are high dimensional, so only a small subset of embedding directions may predict the incremental value of a model, and both the request mix and the model frontier drift after launches, fine-tunes, quantization changes, and system updates. We formulate nonstationary sparse contextual routing with multiple knapsack constraints and an optional shadow-audit stream that evaluates a small fraction of prompts on several models. We propose Drift-Aware Sparse Routing (DRS). The policy estimates reward and resource use from a rolling audit window, routes using pessimistic reward and optimistic cost estimates, updates resource shadow prices online, and applies a hard meter before commitment. The analysis separates control from statistics. On any event with uniform prediction radii $\{β_t\}$, regret against a paced dynamic fluid benchmark is bounded by the sum of the radii, a capacity-buffer term, and an $O(\sqrt{T})$ pacing term. Under a sparse linear model and bounded drift $V_T$, rolling estimation gives \[ \widetilde O\left( T\sqrt{\frac{s}{ρW}}+WV_T+\sqrt{T} \right), \] where $s$ is sparsity, $ρ$ is the audit rate, and $W$ is the window length. Optimizing $W$ yields the usual stationary $O(\sqrt{sT/ρ})$ rate when $V_T=0$ and a $O(T^{2/3}(s/ρ)^{1/3}V_T^{1/3})$ adaptation term under drift.
LLM agents have been widely adopted to operate mission-critical infrastructure (MCI). These agents normally rely on a harness that determines what information they can access, which tools they can use, and what actions they can take. Existing systems often expose the same comprehensive harness to every task, which may not be necessary and cause resource wastes. In this paper, we focus on the identification of optimal harness configurations, and view it as a resource-matching problem between what each task requires and what the harness provides. To measure this match, we classify MCI tasks based on the mathematical representation of the underlying system and rank harness configurations by the amount and type of information they provide. We then construct task-to-harness mappings from two sources: mining research literature and measuring controlled agent execution. Leveraging the measured mapping, we propose a new harness provisioning algorithm: map-guided escalation. It begins with a task-specific harness and expands to full provision only after a failed self-check. We evaluate our method in two representative MCI tasks: in liquid cooling, it improves the agent accuracy from 0.652 under full provision to 0.715 and achieves accuracy comparable to Reflexion with 48% fewer tokens; In power grids, full provision remains accuracy-optimal, while map-based provisioning offers lower-cost alternatives. These findings show that harness provisioning follows a domain-dependent accuracy-cost Pareto frontier rather than a universal optimum.
In cognitive science, resource rationality asks how an agent should allocate limited computation to maximize expected value. Most reasoning and agent benchmarks use independent per-task budgets; existing shared-budget studies do not calibrate suite performance against the same model's demonstrated single-problem competence. We introduce $R^3$-Bench, which evaluates six-problem suites under shared budgets across mathematics, competitive programming, and abstract reasoning in tool-free and agentic settings. Matched single-problem response curves define an offline empirical oracle over observed successes. Across 72 main-table cells for six models, the oracle mean matches or exceeds the contest mean in all cells and is strictly higher in 71. Under moderate tool-free pressure, equal-allocation replay also exceeds contest performance for four of six models. Trajectory diagnostics reveal limited strategy updating and pressure-dependent failure patterns. In a three-model diagnostic under strong agentic pressure, at least one fixed scheduler exceeds the contest mean in six of nine cells, but no policy dominates across domains. These results expose a persistent gap between demonstrated competence and shared-budget realization.
Creating a reusable tool is an investment: an agent pays a fixed cost now in exchange for the potential of future reuse. Therefore, a user should prefer an agent that creates a small number of highly reusable tools, rather than many one-offs. We introduce a paired benchmark that tests whether LLM agents exhibit conscious allocation behavior under a fixed budget in two contexts: an abstract text-based formulation and a code-construction task. We find that every frontier model we test---Claude Haiku, Claude Opus, GPT-5.4-mini, and GPT-5.6 Sol---acts near-optimally in the abstract framing but fails to transfer this ability to script-writing. Through further experiments, we identify the particular failure modes for each model. Notably, the first three models fail even when the scripts are not evaluated, while GPT-5.6 Sol stays selective under that weaker manipulation and collapses only at full construction. Furthermore, an open-source Qwen model policy-trained for abstract allocation generalizes this ability across held-out lexical variations, but sees no improvement at script allocation. Together, these results establish online tool allocation as a significant capability boundary, even for modern frontier models.
Fin Gentzen, Marla Grunewald, Iulisloi Zacarias +2cs.NI cs.AI
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, transitioning from static conversational interfaces to dynamic systems capable of complex reasoning, tool execution, and decision-making. However, the operational reliability of these agentic AI systems is fundamentally challenged by the absence of reliable ground truth in open-ended environments and the risk of increasing operational drift over time. To address this challenge, we propose and experimentally evaluate an agentic AI framework, designed to enforce autonomous integrity within LLM-driven systems. We design a self-calibration mechanism that mitigates drift and dynamically approximates ground truth by incorporating an ARIMA forecaster, without requiring continuous human oversight. To demonstrate the effectiveness and reliability of our methodology, we apply it to the complex domain of profiling the resource usage of zero-knowledge workloads in edge computing networks. Experimental results show that the proposed self-calibrating agentic framework successfully profiles the zero-knowledge workloads, achieving a higher accuracy than baseline LLM agents by 91.7% for resource usage prediction and improving the prediction speed by 71.7% compared to pure profiling, establishing a robust foundation for deploying autonomous AI in decentralized infrastructures. Furthermore, the ground truth generation using the proposed ARIMA leaping algorithm is 52% faster than a standard ARIMA forecasting algorithm, while achieving the same accuracy.
Jovan Nikolic, Maciej Krzysztof Zuziak, Evangelos Pournarascs.MA cs.AI cs.CY cs.DC eess.SY
The problem of fair multi-agent coordination in decentralized settings is one of the most pressing challenges for building efficient collaborative systems. Resource allocation is based on optimized collective arrangements accounting for agents' needs. Such coordination should not only be computationally efficient but also account for fairness, i.e., equitable redistribution of costs incurred by all agents. Recent literature has proposed several algorithms that efficiently determine optimal plan combinations balancing system-wide efficiency and individual discomfort of agents in a centralized setting. However, these works do not address equitable resource optimization in fully decentralized scenarios, specifically, the optimized redistribution of discomfort among coordinating agents so that none experiences a discomfort level that could lead to loss of incentive or polarization that can disrupt planned operations. In this work, we study the problem of optimizing three objectives: (i) system-wide efficiency, (ii) individuals' comfort and (iii) fairness (i.e., balancing of incurred discomfort costs) in decentralized multi-agent coordination. We design a novel model to optimize those three orthogonal objectives, without any substantial increase in communication and computational overhead. Through experiments on two real-world datasets, we validate the model and demonstrate that it can achieve fairer optimization outcomes, while satisfying agents' preferences and system goals.
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly operate as multi-turn systems that must allocate context, prompt verbosity, and tool access under finite computational budgets. Static thresholds are simple, but they are brittle under heterogeneous tasks and evolving session states. We formulate resource governance as a contextual Stackelberg game: a controller commits to a quality target and a cost incentive, while an executor responds with resource actions over context, prompting, and tool usage. We learn a conditional response model, optimize a leader policy against that model, and repair the resulting policy using real-API calibration and projection onto an empirically selected action set. For the restricted game, we establish conditional guarantees for equilibrium existence, follower-response stability, safe-set projection, and transfer from a surrogate environment to the real environment under bounded value error. The primary real-API experiment comprises 300 evaluated turns. Relative to a conservative baseline, the selected repaired controller reduces mean token cost by 17.4% (Welch $p=0.022$), while the measured quality difference is not statistically significant ($p=0.44$). The theoretical results are conditional and the experiments do not estimate their regret or transfer constants; consequently, the evidence establishes a promising repaired operating point, not a certified real-system equilibrium.
Selective-compute LLM systems decide which outputs merit verification, additional reasoning, tool execution, or human audit under a limited budget. It is natural to expect that stronger online optimization over a shared uncertainty or reward signal should improve these decisions. We take a critical look at this assumption and ask: when does optimizing harder fail because the signal is not decision-comparable across inputs? In budgeted LLM verification, we find that uncertainty quality is heteroskedastic across cost strata: some regions exhibit near-random discriminability while concentrating many errors. Under an explicit local model, we characterize the resulting distortion of global allocation and show that its upper bound scales with cross-stratum signal-quality dispersion. To separate weak signals from optimizer instability and structural mismatch, we introduce a controlled intervention hierarchy: Threshold, MP-Adapt, MP-Strat, and cost-stratified thresholding (CST). We then turn the diagnosis into Heterogeneity-Gated Allocation (HGA), which uses a warm-up comparability test to choose between global and cost-stratified allocation. Across MBPP and MATH using Qwen3-8B, LLaMA3-8B, and GPT-4o-mini, global online adaptation yields inconsistent gains over static thresholding; CST improves hit rate by up to 17 percentage points in strongly heterogeneous settings, while HGA preserves most gains and avoids blind stratification when the partition is not useful. These findings suggest a resource-allocation principle for LLM systems: before optimizing harder over a shared proxy, test whether the proxy is decision-comparable across observable operating regimes, and gate structural specialization on that test.
Inference-time scaling has emerged as a critical avenue for enhancing Large Language Models' performance, yet real-world deployment is constrained by strict computational budgets. In this work, we formulate inference budget allocation as a global constrained optimization problem governed by economic principles. By modeling per-query reasoning utility with a shifted-surge function, we derive an optimal allocation policy based on a global shadow price that equilibrates marginal utility under resource scarcity. Based on this theory, we propose Constrained Latent-utility Equilibrium Allocation for Reasoning (CLEAR). It performs rational abandonment and reallocates resources from insolvent queries to solvable queries near their emergence thresholds. Extensive experiments on several reasoning tasks with different traffic streams demonstrate that CLEAR significantly improves the Pareto frontier of total token cost versus mean accuracy. In resource-scarce regimes, CLEAR achieves up to a 3x improvement in global accuracy compared to uniform allocation.