arXiv:2608. 13568v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents spend most of their context budget on retrieval.
arXiv:2609.18672v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An AI assistant that calls tools makes two decisions on every request: which tool to invoke, and whether any available tool applies. In the usual desig...
The paper introduces LRE (Learned Relevance Eviction), a lightweight, CPU‑only, language‑model‑free scorer that learns which parts of an agent’s interaction history are task‑critical and preserves them verbatim. In experiments, LRE matches or surpasses baseline eviction policies on accuracy‑cost trade‑offs, recovers 93% of full‑history accuracy, reduces worst‑case prompt size by 52%, and outperforms dense and token‑pruning encoders in conversational memory while being 295–1569× smaller. The method also achieves superior budgeted answer quality on LoCoMo reading and can be trained annotation‑free, recovering 95% of supervised scorer performance.
arXiv:2609.00378v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models pay a well-documented tax on non-English text: the same content costs several times more tokens, and because attention is quadrat...
arXiv:2607. 09691v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A modern coding agent can hold an entire repository in its context window.
arXiv:2607. 06411v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Developers increasingly delegate real maintenance work to product-grade coding agents, and many state tasks in their native language, in the style of a customer request rather than a curated English issue.
When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps? Multilingual evaluation rarely asks: it compares final answers and discards the actions.
The paper argues that retrieval‑augmented question‑answering systems should perform semantic compilation at ingest time rather than re‑deriving meaning at query time. By building a maintained structure—incrementally updated embeddings and validated atomic claims—read operations become far cheaper, with experimental results showing higher accuracy and lower token usage compared to traditional chunk‑based retrieval. The authors present two proofs: cheaper incremental updates and superior performance on broadcast‑interview transcripts, suggesting a new systems agenda for compilation and read planning.
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.
arXiv:2609.14144v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A transformer language model is trained to respond to any prompt, but each deployment asks only a narrow range of questions: a support assistant sees...
arXiv:2609.39001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM services are billed per token and context windows are measured in tokens, yet the number of tokens needed for the same content varies across lang...
Developers increasingly delegate real maintenance work to product-grade coding agents, and many state tasks in their native language, in the style of a customer request rather than a curated English issue. Existing repository-level agentic benchmarks do not measure this setting: their task statements are English by design.
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.