arXiv:2609.13149v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: For local large language model agents, active context is a scarce resource: memory capacity, prefill latency, cache growth, and service objectives all...
arXiv:2609.35760v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: When a large language model (LLM) agent executes the same task, token consumption can vary by over an order of magnitude across runs. The age...
arXiv:2607. 13034v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering and informatics workflows, yet they rarely ask how much effort a task actually requires.
arXiv:2609.22114v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Context compression is widely proposed as a way to cut the token bill of LLM coding agents, and public benchmarks report that aggressive compression pr...
arXiv:2607. 08032v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models, and the agents built on them, spend an ever-growing share of their compute and memory on remembering: caching attention keys and values, carrying long prompts, maintaining recurrent state, and storing what happened in previous turns and sessions.
Nexus introduces a depth‑adaptive KV‑cache splicing and retrieval‑decoupled tool routing mechanism for agentic large language models that reduces the time‑to‑first‑token (TTFT) by decoupling tool routing from the expensive schema re‑encoding step. It uses an INT8 semantic lookaside buffer to select tools via retrieval and generates arguments from a compressed textual signature, maintaining about 89% routing accuracy even as the tool registry scales to 250 tools. Additionally, Nexus can splice compiled schema KV blocks into the live context, repairing the seam with a depth‑adaptive suffix redecode when rotary position embedding drift exceeds a threshold, ensuring output fidelity while achieving up to 1.7× TTFT speedup at moderate depth.
arXiv:2606. 29914v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent memory systems are increasingly evaluated against RAG and full-context baselines, but reported gains often mix changes in the memory method with changes in the language model, embedding model, or retrieval pipeline, making it unclear what is actually being measured.
arXiv:2609.15309v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents allocate test-time compute adaptively as they revise solutions, use tools, explore alternatives, and decide when to s...
The paper investigates how scaling a team of small language‑model agents affects performance across different orchestration architectures. By testing eight architectures on five short‑answer benchmarks and an executable‑code benchmark, it finds that team scaling yields large gains on arithmetic word‑problem tasks but only modest improvements on multiple‑choice and code generation tasks, with no single architecture dominating all tasks. The authors explain these patterns using a generate‑transform decomposition that separates coverage and transformation effects, showing that arithmetic tasks benefit from both coverage and critic‑guided transformation, while other tasks are limited by saturation or poor conversion.
Agentic AI development today runs on token maxing: buying capability with tokens -- longer reasoning traces, more turns, wider tool payloads, bigger replayed contexts -- so tokens per task grow faster than task value. Falling per-token prices mask the pattern; total spend rises anyway.
arXiv:2608. 15127v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic applications are shifting AI serving from isolated model inference to long-running workloads in which LLMs coordinate tools, environments, and persistent state.
arXiv:2608. 13571v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a language model fails to answer a query on the first attempt, an agentic system retries, consuming additional tokens each time.