Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Frontier LLM agents allocate a tool budget near-optimally in the abstract, yet the same models fail to carry that skill into script-writing tasks on identical streams.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:46 UTC pith:TOXHGVM7

load-bearing objection Solid preregistered benchmark; the R1→R2 contrast makes the code-emission trigger credible, but the abstract overclaims 'near-optimal' R0 behavior. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23332 v2 pith:TOXHGVM7 submitted 2026-07-25 cs.LG

AllocBench: Measuring Online Tool Allocation Capability in LLM Agents

Daniel Wang , Andrew Xu This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords online tool allocationbudget awarenesstool creationLLM agentsframing ladderfirst-sight commitmentreinforcement learning transfercapability evaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper builds a paired benchmark, AllocBench, that presents identical 60-task streams in four framings from abstract (colored balls, keep/pass) to constructive (writing reusable Python scripts). Across four frontier models, the paper finds every model defers commitment and spends its budget near-optimally in the abstract frame, but commits on first sight almost every time in the script frame. The paper localizes the trigger: for three models, merely requiring code emission flips the behavior; for the strongest model the collapse happens only at full script construction and execution. An RL-trained open model that learns the abstract policy generalizes across vocabulary reskins but shows no transfer to numeric or script frames. The paper's conclusion is that online tool allocation is a distinct capability boundary: frontier models have the ability, but constructive framings suppress it.

Core claim

The paper claims that frontier LLM agents (Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-5.4-mini, GPT-5.6 Sol) possess a working online budget-allocation capability: each waits for a class to repeat before spending one of three build slots more than 70% of the time in an abstract keep/pass setting, yet none waits more than 12% of the time in the full script-construction rung. The framing ladder pins the failure: declarative numeric claims and the abstract setting produce similar behavior, but requiring Python code emission makes three models nearly fully eager, while the strongest model remains selective under code emission (39% first-sight) and collapses only at full script construction (100%). A

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the paired framing ladder: the same 24 latent class streams, each with three hot and five trap classes under a three-slot build budget, rendered at four rungs (abstract keep/pass, declarative solver claims, code-required claims, and executed reusable scripts). Because only the surface changes and the defer-then-confirm policy is optimal at every rung, a behavioral gap between rungs isolates the effect of constructive framing. Two metrics carry the argument: first-sight commitment (the fraction of commitments made on a class's first occurrence, conditional on committing) and Score, the realized utility as a percentage of the exact hindsight-optimal utility. A supplem

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the four framing rungs differ only in surface format: class identity must be equally recognizable in the abstract and script frames, so the near-optimal abstract behavior reflects an allocation ability that the script frame suppresses, rather than a difference in how hard it is to identify problem types or to hand-solve them.

What would settle it

Run the R3 streams with the script library already present and the model choosing only whether to register a new script as a declarative decision (no code emission), while keeping the execution-and-reuse loop: if first-sight commitment stays near 100%, the trigger is the tool-execution context rather than code emission itself, undercutting the paper's localization claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Requiring code emission, not mathematical content, is what destroys frontier models' allocation: declarative numeric claims behave like the abstract frame, while code-required and full-script rungs are near-eager.
  • Some frontier models (GPT-5.6 Sol) can allocate under required code, so the capability is not inherently absent; it is suppressed by full script construction, suggesting a framing-specific rather than global deficit.
  • Tool-building agent systems should separate the abstract decision to invest from the process of creating the tool; the paper's R1 result suggests a declarative-claim agent could preserve budget behavior that a script-writing agent loses.
  • The paper conjectures the suppression arises from post-training on coding datasets composed of unrelated problems with independent rewards; if so, training on recurring task streams with visible build costs should restore allocation at R2/R3.
  • Online tool allocation should be evaluated as a capability separate from tool-correctness; existing tool benchmarks conflate an absent policy with a suppressed one.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: an agent system that delegates the investment decision to a separate module consuming only recurrence statistics, with a separate code-writer executing the build, should recover R3 utility close to the R0 score; the paper suggests but does not build this.
  • The economic inelasticity of the code-required rung implies that prompt-level budget trackers, which help in web-search budget awareness, are likely insufficient for tool-creation allocation: the model ignores a visible price, not merely an untracked budget.
  • Because the benchmark uses synthetic problem families with clean class boundaries, the size of the R0-to-R3 gap in real settings with fuzzy class boundaries and partial reuse could differ; measuring allocation on data with overlapping reusable functions would test the boundary in production conditions.
  • A controlled training-data ablation — comparing models post-trained on independent-problem streams versus recurring-task streams with a build cost — would directly test the paper's causal conjecture about why construction suppresses allocation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. AllocBench introduces a paired benchmark with four framing rungs (R0 abstract, R1 declarative, R2 code-required, R3 full script construction) to test whether LLM agents allocate a fixed tool budget over a stream by waiting for recurrence before committing. Results: frontier models show low first-sight commitment in R0 (4–28%) but high first-sight commitment in R3 (88–100%); the trigger localizes at required code emission for three models and at full script construction for GPT-5.6 Sol. A Qwen model post-trained on R0 acquires reserve that generalizes across lexical reskins but not to numeric or script rungs. The paper interprets this as a capability boundary: abstract allocation ability is present but suppressed by constructive tool-creation framings.

Significance. If the core dissociation holds, the paper identifies a novel and practically important capability boundary: frontier LLM agents can exhibit budget-aware allocation in an abstract setting but do not transfer it to tool creation. The study is unusually transparent for the field: paired within-seed comparisons, a preregistered trigger rule, seed-bootstrap confidence intervals, released code and episode logs, and an honest Limitations section. The R1→R2 localization is a valuable control that separates declarative claims from code emission, and the RL transfer case study provides a useful negative result. However, the strength of the headline claim is undercut by overstatement in the abstract and by an unmeasured recognition channel that the R0→R3 comparison does not fully rule out.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.1; Figure 2/Table 4] The abstract states that all four frontier models 'acts near-optimally in the abstract framing'. The reported evidence is R0 first-sight commitment rates of 4–28% (Table 4 intervals: 27.8 [20.8,34.7] for Haiku, 4.2 [0.0,8.3] for Opus, etc.) and R0 scores around 75–80% (Figure 3; Section 4.4 compares Qwen's 79.6% with GPT-5.6 Sol's 78.3%). Those numbers are far from the exact hindsight optimum and from the optimal policy described in Appendix A.1, where first-sight commitment should be near zero. 'Near-optimally' is therefore an overstatement; 'more reserved' or 'semi-optimally' would be accurate. This is the central claim of the paper and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.3; Appendix B.6] The claim that class identity is 'cheap rather than the binding constraint' is supported only by the cross-type misapplication count of 22/478 run attempts (4.6%). As the paper itself notes, this metric captures only false-positive reuse — running a script on a different class — and 'not the converse failure of not recognizing that two instances share a type'. In R3, class identity must be inferred from a single rendered instance with fresh parameters and randomized cover stories (Appendix B.3), so a model that systematically fails to recognize a later instance as the same family would write a script at first sight for essentially every instance, producing exactly the observed 88–100% first-sight rates even with zero allocation suppression. The R1→R2 localization is a strong control between R1 and R2 (same recognition demand, with and without code), but it does not establish that the R0→
  3. [Section 3.2 vs Appendix D.4] Section 3.2 states: 'We verify that all tested models are approximately unable to solve the problems without a script'. Appendix D.4 reports that Opus hand-solves 'roughly 25–38% of problems in isolation' at the magnitude-100 rendering, and later says that 'with a genuine if narrow hand-solve alternative available on every turn, Opus submitted a raw, script-free answer to an unbuilt class only once across the full 24-seed panel'. A 25–38% isolated hand-solve rate is not 'approximately unable'. The two statements are in tension and should be reconciled: either present the verification accurately or soften the motivation that 'budget allocation genuinely important'. This inconsistency does not overturn the R0→R3 dissociation, but it is a load-bearing component of the task-design narrative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (2)] The Score denominator is defined as the sum of the sizes of the B largest classes. State explicitly at first use that this is a hindsight optimum and not implementable online; the Limitations section already says this, but the definition itself should carry the caveat.
  2. [Table 1 and Table 4] Table 1 reports pooled first-sight commitment rates without stating that they are conditional on realized commitments and pooled across seeds. Table 4 gives intervals, but the caption should note explicitly that these are per-arm marginal intervals and that rung-to-rung significance must be read from the paired differences in Table 3, not from interval overlap.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption says the shaded boxes are marginal 95% seed-bootstrap intervals, not a joint confidence region. Good. Please also state the point estimates explicitly in the text or figure, since the R0 and R2 scores are correlated and readers may otherwise compare overlapping boxes.
  4. [Section 4.4 / Table 5] GPT-5.4-mini's R3 first-sight rate of 88% is based on only 25 commitments (Table 5: 1.04 commits/seed, 13/24 zero-commit seeds). The paired interval partly reflects this, but the text should caution against cross-model comparisons at R3 given the small denominator.
  5. [Appendix I] Typo: 'occassionally' should be 'occasionally'.
  6. [Figure 4 caption] The caption appears to be missing a period after 'framing ladder'; the sentence runs into the next phrase. Minor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the optimal-policy derivation, paired framing comparisons, and RL transfer study are independent of the conclusions; acknowledged limitations affect construct validity, not circularity.

full rationale

No circularity found. The paper's central normative claim—that the defer-then-confirm policy is optimal—is derived in Appendix A.1 from an explicit symmetric-Dirichlet prior, Monte Carlo simulation, and the benchmark's disclosed stream distribution; it is not fitted to any model's behavior. The outcome metrics (first-sight commitment, Score) are defined directly from the environment reward in Sections 3.1 and 3.4, and the R0–R3 comparisons are paired within model on identical latent streams, so the reported dissociation is an empirical measurement rather than a quantity constructed from the conclusion. The RL case study is trained on the benchmark's own R0 reward and then evaluated on lexical reskins and higher rungs; this is instrumentally self-referential, but not circular, because the transfer failure is a measured outcome and the training objective is explicitly disclosed. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear; all cited external work (regret, budget-awareness, coding RL) supports context rather than the conclusion. The genuine validity caveat—Section 3.3's admission that 'class identity is immediate in R0 and must be inferred in later rungs,' and Appendix B.6's statement that the cross-type metric 'captures only false-positive reuse—running the wrong script—not the converse failure of not recognizing that two instances share a type'—means the R0→R3 gap may partly reflect unmeasured false-negative recognition, but that is a confound for the suppression interpretation, not a circular derivation. Likewise, Appendix F.5's unresolved-turn pathology is a channel limitation, not an input-to-output reduction. These limitations lower construct validity, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on benchmark design choices (budget, rates, stream length), the composite-ladder interpretation, and the assumption that type recognition is not the binding constraint. These are disclosed and partly supported by internal checks.

free parameters (6)
  • Tool budget B = 3
    Core comparison uses B=3; chosen by hand to make the three-hot/five-trap allocation binding. Changing B changes the economic pressure.
  • Hot/trap class rates = hot 0.85 total (0.2833 each), traps 0.15 total (0.03 each)
    Stream generator design choices that amplify the benefit of waiting; the 'capability boundary' result may depend on this separation.
  • Stream length T and class count N = 60 tasks, 8 classes
    Benchmark parameters; recurrence counts scale with T and N, shaping how often a built tool pays off.
  • Trap-in-first-3 rejection sampling = at least one trap in first B=3 slots
    Ensures early temptation; this shapes the first-sight metric and the measured behavior.
  • Problem magnitude = 100 (primary), 1000 (Opus completeness check)
    Magnitude 100 chosen for cross-model parity even though Opus hand-solves 25-38% of such problems; affects the 'unable to solve without script' premise.
  • Dirichlet prior α = α=1 (canonical), sensitivity α∈{0.5,2}
    Used in Appendix A.1's optimal-policy arithmetic to justify defer-then-confirm; not fitted to model data.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Defer-then-confirm is the optimal online policy for AllocBench streams.
    Derived in Appendix A.1 under symmetric Dirichlet prior and known generative rates; defines the benchmark's 'optimal' behavior and the Score denominator.
  • domain assumption The framing ladder's composite rungs identify the earliest behavioral trigger without confounding.
    A.2 acknowledges rung steps are composite and the localization is not causal isolation; the interpretation that code emission suppresses allocation assumes no other rung difference drives the jump.
  • domain assumption Class identity is derivable from rendered instances; cross-type misapplication is rare.
    Section 3.3 and B.6 report 4.6% false-positive run refusals, but the metric does not capture missed recognition; the R0→R3 comparison assumes recognition is not the binding constraint.
  • domain assumption Paired within-model comparisons at held reasoning settings isolate framing effects.
    GPT endpoints reject tools when reasoning enabled, so all GPT arms run at reasoning effort=none; Claude arms emit deliberation. The paper argues the paired design controls this, but it is an unverified assumption about model internals.
  • domain assumption The 24 canonical streams are representative of tool-allocation tasks.
    Synthetic numeric environment with engineered classes; real tasks have ambiguous classes and shifting frequencies, as acknowledged in Limitations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23488 in / 15233 out tokens · 155443 ms · 2026-08-03T01:46:06.603071+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23332 by Andrew Xu, Daniel Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The optimal policy: pass on first sight, build on confirmed recurrence. Colored circles represent the first 15 of 60 classes from one canonical stream (seed 2000; see Appendix B). The policy spends the B = 3 budget on the three hot classes and collects later occurrences of built classes for free; the trap classes are correctly left unclaimed. five trap, uniformly at random. Hot families share 0.85 of the p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: First-sight commitment rate of frontier models on R0 and R3. Thin lines connect paired seeds; large points show averages, with 95% seed-bootstrap intervals (N = 24) on each pooled rate. Open circles mark seeds that commit in the abstract frame but realize no script build at all in R3. The paired within-seed R0→R3 difference intervals are reported in Appendix D.1. 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS We evaluate five mod… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Score (percent of the optimal net utility realized) for each frontier model in R0 vs. in R2. The trend matches that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: First-sight commitment rates for Qwen before and after post-training across the framing ladder In the blue region, a learned abstract policy performs significantly better than the base model. Once a numerical problem is shown, the two models are statistically indistinguishable. Error bars are 95% seed-bootstrap intervals (N = 24) on each pooled rate. 5 DISCUSSION Why might construction suppress allocation?… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Abstract allocation responds to price; code-required commitment does not. First￾sight commitment hazard across visible build charges for each build budget. The abstract R0 policy becomes more selective as construction grows expensive, broadly co-moving with the exact hind￾sight net optimum, which itself declines to near-zero commitment at K = 24. The code-required R2 policy stays near 100% first sight acro… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Training curves for the complete run population. Left: mean training reward (items collected) per outer step for the four flat episode-scalar GRPO pilots (gray) and the successful per￾decision PPO Run 2 (navy), against the mean rewards of the eager and wait-for-one-repeat heuristics on the same training batches. Right: Run 2’s per-step first-sight commitment rate on its own training rollouts, falling monot… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    are insteadpaired within-seed differences, which a level plot cannot show; Table 3 collects them. Each entry is a paired seed bootstrap of the difference of the two rungs’ re-pooled first-sight-among-commitments ratios, resampling the 24 canonical seeds (2000–2023) as clusters 10,000 times at RNG seed 0 – the same estimand and procedure as Table

    2000

  2. [2]

    Positive means more first-sight (eager) commitment at the later rung. Model R1−R0 R2−R1 R3−R2 R3−R0 (overall) Haiku 4.5+5.6 [−11.1,+23.6] +65.3 [+51.4,+79.2] +1.4 [+0.0,+4.2] +72.2 [+65.3,+79.2] Opus 4.8−4.2 [−8.3,+0.0] +91.7 [+86.1,+97.2] +6.9 [+0.0,+13.9] +94.4 [+88.9,+98.6] GPT-5.4-mini+14.1 [−10.8,+40.5] +55.6 [+31.2,+77.1] +3.0 [−14.3,+22.2] +72.7 [+...

    2000

  3. [3]

    Spend less, reason better: Budget-aware value tree search for LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12634,

    Yushu Li, Wenlong Deng, Jiajin Li, and Xiaoxiao Li. Spend less, reason better: Budget-aware value tree search for LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12634,

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Calibrate-then-act: Cost-aware exploration in LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16699,

    Wenxuan Ding, Nicholas Tomlin, and Greg Durrett. Calibrate-then-act: Cost-aware exploration in LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16699,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [6]

    When greedy wins: Emergent exploitation bias in meta-bandit LLM training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24923,

    Sanxing Chen, Xiaoyin Chen, Yukun Huang, Roy Xie, and Bhuwan Dhingra. When greedy wins: Emergent exploitation bias in meta-bandit LLM training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24923,

    arXiv

  6. [7]

    When agents commit too soon: Diagnosing premature commitment in LLM agents

    Aman Mehta. When agents commit too soon: Diagnosing premature commitment in LLM agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.22936,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [8]

    Reasoning or reciting? exploring the capabilities and limitations of language models through counterfactual tasks

    Zhaofeng Wu, Linlu Qiu, Alexis Ross, Ekin Aky ¨urek, Boyuan Chen, Bailin Wang, Najoung Kim, Jacob Andreas, and Yoon Kim. Reasoning or reciting? exploring the capabilities and limitations of language models through counterfactual tasks. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Huma...

    2024

  8. [11]

    Accessed 2026-07-21

    Agentica and Together AI. Accessed 2026-07-21. Kimi Team. Kimi k1.5: Scaling reinforcement learning with LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [12]

    Competitive programming with large reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06807,

    OpenAI. Competitive programming with large reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06807,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [13]

    Accessed 2026-07-21. 11 Preprint A BENCHMARKTHEORY ANDPREREGISTRATION A.1 OPTIMAL-POLICY ARITHMETIC The prompts disclose only thatN= 8classes occur; the rates and the three-hot/five-trap split are never revealed (Appendix B), so we price decisions under a symmetric Dirichlet(α) prior over the eight rates, withα= 1(uniform on the simplex) as the canonical ...

    2026

  11. [18]

    and mean commitments per seed for each frontier model across the ladder.Canonical seeds 2000–2023, all cells at N=

    2000

  12. [19]

    The magnitude change therefore has no detectable effect on Opus’s construction-time ea- gerness

    Josephus accounts for seven of the 72 builds in both arms, all at first sight in both, so its known hand-solvability at any magnitude does not drive either result. The magnitude change therefore has no detectable effect on Opus’s construction-time ea- gerness. We report the magnitude-100 arm as primary because it removes an asymmetry across the model pane...

    2000

  13. [20]

    bootstrap intervals,N= 24)

    Each cell reuses the same 24 paired Haiku streams; opt* is an offline upper bound, not an online policy. bootstrap intervals,N= 24). Because R2 is near ceiling throughout, the interaction is driven almost entirely by R0’s price response. Figure 5 shows this behavioral signature directly: R0’s first-sight hazard descends with price alongside the optimum’s,...

    2000

  14. [21]

    minus base.Score is percent of hindsight- optimal utility realized;∆is the difference of re-pooled ratios with a 95% seed-bootstrap interval (24 seeds 2000–2023 resampled as clusters, 10,000 resamples, RNG seed 0), the same estimand as Table

    2000

  15. [22]

    Still gath- ering information; too early to commit a keep

    No rung shows a significant training gain: the R0 contrast is unresolved (the R0 acquisition is carried by first-sight timing, not Score; Table 7), R1 straddles zero, and the only resolved effect is the R2 decrease, which reflects the code-emission channel limitation quantified above rather than allocation timing. 22 Preprint F.6 R3COMMITMENT-VOLUME DIAGN...

    2000

  16. [23]

    python -u -m scripts.ladder.urn_tool_session \ --model haiku --announce-n --seeds $(seq 2000

    PYTHONPATH=. python -u -m scripts.ladder.urn_tool_session \ --model haiku --announce-n --seeds $(seq 2000

    2000

  17. [24]

    The hypotheses, rule, and analysis plan were frozen before data collection

    All other ladder comparisons are descriptive and not multiplicity-adjusted. The hypotheses, rule, and analysis plan were frozen before data collection. Prompt and harness repairs are categorized as pre- or post-outcome in the artifact record. B EXPERIMENTALRECONSTRUCTION B.1 STREAMS AND SESSION STATE All confirmatory Haiku, Opus, and GPT comparisons use c...

    2000

  18. [25]

    python -u -m scripts.ladder.claim_solver_session \ --model haiku --announce-n --seeds $(seq 2000

    PYTHONPATH=. python -u -m scripts.ladder.claim_solver_session \ --model haiku --announce-n --seeds $(seq 2000

    2000

  19. [26]

    python -u -m scripts.ladder.claim_solver_code_session \ --model haiku --announce-n --seeds $(seq 2000

    PYTHONPATH=. python -u -m scripts.ladder.claim_solver_code_session \ --model haiku --announce-n --seeds $(seq 2000

    2000

  20. [27]

    python -u -m scripts.ladder.arm_a1_announce \ --model haiku --announce-n --full-stream --seeds $(seq 2000

    PYTHONPATH=. python -u -m scripts.ladder.arm_a1_announce \ --model haiku --announce-n --full-stream --seeds $(seq 2000

    2000

  21. [28]

    python -u -m scripts.ladder.arm_a1_announce \ --model opus --announce-n --canonical-structure --magnitude 100 --publication \ --seeds $(seq 2000

    --cap 20.0 --unit-cap 2.0 PYTHONPATH=. python -u -m scripts.ladder.arm_a1_announce \ --model opus --announce-n --canonical-structure --magnitude 100 --publication \ --seeds $(seq 2000

    2000

  22. [29]

    python -u -m scripts.economic.run_economic_surface \ --seeds $(seq 2000

    --cap 3.0 --unit-cap 0.75 PYTHONPATH=. python -u -m scripts.economic.run_economic_surface \ --seeds $(seq 2000

    2000

  23. [30]

    python -u -m scripts.analysis.analyze_economic_surface \ --seeds $(seq 2000

    PYTHONPATH=. python -u -m scripts.analysis.analyze_economic_surface \ --seeds $(seq 2000

    2000

  24. [100]

    is runs/arm_a1_announce_opus_n-announced_canonical-structure_mag100_ class-bound-v1; the magnitude-1000 completeness check (Appendix D.4) isruns/arm_ a1_announce_opus_n-announced_canonical-structure_class-bound-v1. GPT artifacts are underruns/economic_surface_gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17and runs/economic_surface_gpt-5.6-sol; each contains the exact model ident...

    2026

  25. [272]

    Report the final value of X

    It is updated 28 times; each update replaces X with ((43300 * X) + 38700) mod 18314600. Report the final value of X. B.4 MODELS AND GENERATION SETTINGS Claude runs useclaude-haiku-4-5-20251001andclaude-opus-4-8. GPT runs use gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17andgpt-5.6-sol. Provider-default temperature is held fixed across paired arms. Claude R1 and R2 usetool choic...

    2026

  26. [2018]

    Budget- constrained agentic large language models: Intention-based planning for costly tool use.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11541, 2026b

    Hanbing Liu, Chunhao Tian, Nan An, Ziyuan Wang, Pinyan Lu, Changyuan Yu, and Qi Qi. Budget- constrained agentic large language models: Intention-based planning for costly tool use.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11541, 2026b. Yuxiang Wei, Olivier Duchenne, Jade Copet, Quentin Carbonneaux, Lingming Zhang, Daniel Fried, Gabriel Synnaeve, Rishabh Singh, and Sida I...

    arXiv

  27. [2023]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [2024]

    Utility-guided agent orchestration for efficient LLM tool use.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19896, 2026a

    Boyan Liu, Gongming Zhao, and Hongli Xu. Utility-guided agent orchestration for efficient LLM tool use.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19896, 2026a. 10 Preprint Xinglin Wang, Zishen Liu, Shaoxiong Feng, Peiwen Yuan, Yiwei Li, Jiayi Shi, Yueqi Zhang, Chuyi Tan, Ji Zhang, Boyuan Pan, Yao Hu, and Kan Li. On time, within budget: Constraint-driven online resource al...

    arXiv

  29. [2025]

    BAGEN: Are LLM agents budget-aware?arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.00198,

    Yuxiang Lin, Zihan Wang, Mengyang Liu, Yuxuan Shan, Longju Bai, Junyao Zhang, Xing Jin, Boshan Chen, Jinyan Su, Xingyao Wang, Jiaxin Pei, and Manling Li. BAGEN: Are LLM agents budget-aware?arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.00198,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [2026]

    Budget-aware tool-use enables effective agent scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17006,

    Tengxiao Liu, Zifeng Wang, Jin Miao, I-Hung Hsu, Jun Yan, Jiefeng Chen, Rujun Han, Fangyuan Xu, Yanfei Chen, Ke Jiang, Samira Daruki, Yi Liang, William Yang Wang, Tomas Pfister, and Chen-Yu Lee. Budget-aware tool-use enables effective agent scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17006,

    arXiv