TraceLab: Characterizing Coding Agent Workloads for LLM Serving
arXiv:2606. 30560v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents are rapidly becoming a major application of agentic LLMs, but serving them efficiently remains challenging.
arXiv:2608. 00101v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents like GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and Codex interleave multi-step LLM inference with tool execution, creating a workload different from chatbots.
arXiv:2606. 30560v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents are rapidly becoming a major application of agentic LLMs, but serving them efficiently remains challenging.
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.
AgentPerfBench is a new benchmarking suite designed to evaluate the inference performance of agentic large language models (LLMs) that handle multi‑turn, tool‑using, and context‑expanding tasks. It builds on real traces from agentic benchmarks such as SWE‑Bench and TerminalBench, and generates synthetic profiles that reflect realistic input/output lengths and turn counts. The suite also provides kernel‑level Nsight Compute traces and a multi‑dimensional roofline model to identify hardware bottlenecks and quantify the gap between traditional chat benchmarks and agentic workloads.
The paper investigates how large‑language‑model (LLM) based AI agents mix latency, local resource usage, and container bottlenecks when processing user requests that involve remote LLM calls and local tool execution. By measuring three representative tasks—retrieval‑augmented question answering, web search, and software coding—the authors show that agents exhibit diverse resource dynamics, with concurrent requests revealing task‑specific bottlenecks in CPU, disk I/O, and memory. Leveraging these insights, they propose CPU‑aware tool admission and task‑aware CPU allocation, achieving up to a 5.4× speed‑up for CPU‑sensitive tasks and a 32% reduction in average latency across multiple tasks.
arXiv:2608.29204v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI-based software engineering agents are becoming routine contributors to real-world software projects. On GitHub, developers can assign t...
arXiv:2607. 23933v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLM agents increasingly rely on the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to invoke isolated external sandboxes, disaggregated sandbox deployment introduces a fundamental tension between resource utilization and interactive tail latency.
arXiv:2603. 18897v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-powered agents execute tasks through a sequential loop of model generation and tool execution.
arXiv:2604.20779v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI coding agents are being adopted at scale, yet we lack empirical evidence on how people actually use them and how much of their output is useful...
arXiv:2608. 04458v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI is emerging in datacenters, but its architectural implications remain unexplored.
arXiv:2604. 26963v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as the execution core of autonomous agents rather than as standalone text generators.
arXiv:2607. 09493v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems that generate code through multi-turn tool use face a fundamental context problem: each session starts from zero, discarding the configuration choices, domain constraints, data schemas, and tool-use patterns that made previous sessions productive.
UniACE is a unified framework that standardizes the evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents by representing each benchmark as an instruction–tool–environment triplet and running models through a shared, task‑agnostic harness in isolated runtimes. It preserves native success criteria, offers an offline mode for dynamic‑resource tasks, and standardizes efficiency metrics, execution records, and failure attribution. Applying UniACE to 7 benchmarks across 24 domains and 15 models revealed significant score shifts, ranking reversals, and sensitivity to evidence representation, highlighting the impact of evaluation configuration on reported agent performance.