BAGEN: Are LLM Agents Budget-Aware?

Boshan Chen; Jiaxin Pei; Jinyan Su; Junyao Zhang; Longju Bai; Manling Li; Mengyang Liu; Xing Jin; Xingyao Wang; Yuxiang Lin

arxiv: 2606.00198 · v1 · pith:DGOD5TQKnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

BAGEN: Are LLM Agents Budget-Aware?

Yuxiang Lin , Zihan Wang , Mengyang Liu , Yuxuan Shan , Longju Bai , Junyao Zhang , Xing Jin , Boshan Chen

show 4 more authors

Jinyan Su Xingyao Wang Jiaxin Pei Manling Li

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 23:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

keywords budget-aware agentsLLM agentscost estimationinterval estimationearly stoppingover-optimismfrontier modelstoken efficiency

0 comments

The pith

Frontier LLM agents are over-optimistic about budgets and rarely alert users before wasting resources on failing tasks.

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

The paper tests whether LLM agents can treat budgets as an active signal during planning rather than a number recorded after the fact. It formalizes budget-awareness as the ability to output shrinking interval estimates of remaining cost at each step and to flag when success becomes improbable. Experiments across five frontier models and four environments show that agent capability correlates only weakly with this skill, that models continue spending on doomed trajectories, and that the signal can be improved through training even if precise calibration stays difficult. A rollout-replay protocol supplies the measurements, and early-stop interventions demonstrate concrete token savings on failed runs.

Core claim

Budget-awareness is defined as progressive interval estimation: at every planning step an agent must output an upper and lower bound on remaining budget and issue an alert once completion is unlikely. Five frontier agents evaluated on four environments under a rollout-replay protocol exhibit only modest correlation (r=0.35) between task performance and budget estimation quality; the models are systematically over-optimistic and keep consuming resources instead of alerting early. The budget signal proves actionable, with early stopping recovering 28-64% of tokens on failed trajectories, and SFT+RL training strengthens stopping and alerting behavior, although interval coverage reaches only 47%

What carries the argument

Progressive interval estimation: at each step the agent predicts upper and lower bounds on remaining budget and alerts when success probability drops.

If this is right

Agent strength on tasks does not guarantee strength at budget estimation.
Over-optimism causes continued spending on trajectories that will fail.
Early stopping on low-probability trajectories recovers 28-64% of tokens.
SFT+RL training improves early-stop and alert behavior but leaves interval coverage at 47%.
Budget estimation and task success can be trained as partly independent objectives.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Budget-awareness may need to be optimized separately from task accuracy rather than emerging as a side effect of capability scaling.
The same interval-estimation protocol could be applied to other scarce resources such as wall-clock time or API rate limits.
Deployment systems could expose the agent's current interval bounds to users as a live dashboard rather than a post-run report.
If interval calibration stays low even after training, hybrid human-in-the-loop review of alerts may be required before full autonomy.

Load-bearing premise

The rollout-replay measurements on the four environments capture the budget-awareness that matters in actual user deployments.

What would settle it

Live deployment of the same agents on real user tasks where predicted intervals and alerts are compared against the actual remaining budget at the moment each alert is issued.

read the original abstract

While agents are increasingly spending more resources, today agent cost is mostly measured only after execution. A Budget-Aware Agent (BAGEN) should treat budget as an active control signal, rather than a passive cost metric. We first systematically define budget estimation as internal budgets (from agent computation) and external budgets (from agent actions). We then formalize budget-awareness as progressive interval estimation: at each step of a plan, an agent should predict an upper and lower bound on remaining budget, and alert when completion is unlikely. Scoring with a rollout-replay protocol, we find consistent failure patterns on four environments and five frontier agents: (1) strong agents do not necessarily have strong budget-awareness, with correlation r=0.35. (2) frontier models are consistently over-optimistic, continue spending on tasks that are unlikely to succeed, instead of alerting the user early. (3) budget-aware signal is actionable and trainable. Early stop saves 28-64% tokens on failed trajectories, and SFT+RL strengthens early stop and alert behavior. (4) precise interval calibration remains challenging, with interval coverage capping at 47% after SFT+RL. Project page: https://ragen-ai.github.io/bagen/

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper supplies a fresh protocol for measuring budget-awareness in agents and shows over-optimism plus trainable early stopping, but the rollout-replay results rest on four environments whose match to real deployments is untested.

read the letter

The core point is that this work defines budget-awareness as progressive interval estimation of remaining cost at each step, then uses a rollout-replay protocol to score five frontier agents across four environments. It reports low correlation (r=0.35) between task performance and budget awareness, consistent over-optimism on failing trajectories, 28-64% token savings from early stopping, and a lift from SFT+RL that still leaves interval coverage at only 47%.

What stands out as new is the interval-estimation framing itself and the replay scoring method; these are not standard extensions of existing agent benchmarks. The empirical numbers on savings and the effect of training are concrete and directly usable for anyone trying to cap costs in production agents.

The main limitation is external validity. The abstract gives no ablation showing that replay scores align with decisions made under live budget caps, and no argument that the four environments cover representative task lengths or cost structures. If those conditions do not hold, the over-optimism pattern and the 47% coverage figure may not travel. The low r value also indicates the signal is noisy even inside the testbed.

This paper is aimed at researchers building or evaluating LLM agents who need a practical handle on cost control. It is worth sending to peer review because the problem is real, the protocol is new, and the training results are falsifiable; a referee can check the methods and ask for the missing generalization tests.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper defines budget estimation (internal from computation, external from actions) and budget-awareness as progressive interval estimation with early alerts on unlikely completion. Using a rollout-replay protocol on four environments and five frontier agents, it reports r=0.35 correlation between agent capability and budget-awareness, consistent over-optimism (continued spending on failing tasks), 28-64% token savings from early stopping, and that SFT+RL improves alerting but caps interval coverage at 47%.

Significance. If the measurements generalize, the work identifies a practically important limitation in current LLM agents and demonstrates that budget-awareness is trainable, which could inform more resource-efficient agent systems. The concrete numbers on savings and coverage provide a clear baseline for future work.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (rollout-replay protocol): the central claim that frontier models are over-optimistic and fail to alert early rests entirely on replay scores from recorded trajectories; no ablation or comparison to live budget-capped executions is reported, so it is unclear whether the observed 47% coverage and over-optimism reflect intrinsic model behavior or artifacts of the replay harness.
[§4] §4 (environments): the four chosen environments are used to support generalization claims about budget dynamics, yet no justification, ablation, or coverage argument is given that they span representative task lengths, failure modes, or cost structures; this directly affects whether the r=0.35 correlation and early-stop savings hold beyond the testbed.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] The abstract states 'precise interval calibration remains challenging' but the methods section should explicitly define how interval bounds are elicited from the model at each step.
[Results] Table reporting per-agent/per-environment results should include raw counts of trajectories and failure rates to allow assessment of statistical power behind the 28-64% savings range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our work. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments, proposing revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened without misrepresenting our current results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (rollout-replay protocol): the central claim that frontier models are over-optimistic and fail to alert early rests entirely on replay scores from recorded trajectories; no ablation or comparison to live budget-capped executions is reported, so it is unclear whether the observed 47% coverage and over-optimism reflect intrinsic model behavior or artifacts of the replay harness.

Authors: The rollout-replay protocol was designed to isolate the agent's internal budget estimation and alerting behavior by replaying fixed trajectories, thereby removing confounding variables such as live API variability or external system state changes. This enables precise scoring of interval predictions against ground-truth remaining costs. We acknowledge that the lack of a direct comparison to live budget-capped executions leaves open the possibility of harness-specific artifacts, and this constitutes a genuine limitation of the current evaluation. We will revise §3 to articulate the rationale for replay, add an explicit limitations paragraph discussing potential differences from live settings, and outline future work on live evaluations. revision: partial
Referee: [§4] §4 (environments): the four chosen environments are used to support generalization claims about budget dynamics, yet no justification, ablation, or coverage argument is given that they span representative task lengths, failure modes, or cost structures; this directly affects whether the r=0.35 correlation and early-stop savings hold beyond the testbed.

Authors: We selected the four environments for their established use in agent benchmarks and their differing action and token cost profiles, but the manuscript indeed provides no explicit justification, ablation, or coverage analysis of task lengths and failure modes. We agree this weakens the generalization argument. We will add a dedicated paragraph to §4 that describes the task-length distributions, primary failure modes, and cost structures of each environment, thereby supporting the reported correlation and savings figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical measurements on external models and environments

full rationale

The paper defines budget estimation and formalizes budget-awareness as progressive interval estimation, then reports measured outcomes (r=0.35 correlation, over-optimism patterns, 28-64% token savings, 47% coverage) from rollout-replay on frontier models across four environments. These quantities are obtained from external model outputs and token counts rather than from any fitted parameter or self-referential equation that reduces the reported results to the inputs by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation steps appear.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the domain assumption that budget can be meaningfully decomposed into internal computation and external action costs and that progressive interval prediction is the right operationalization; no free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Budget can be decomposed into internal (agent computation) and external (agent actions) components that are estimable at each planning step.
Stated in the first paragraph of the abstract as the starting point for the BAGEN definition.
domain assumption The rollout-replay protocol produces faithful measurements of an agent's budget-awareness.
Implicit in the scoring method used to obtain the four findings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5789 in / 1461 out tokens · 23108 ms · 2026-06-28T23:22:39.331513+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Silent Failure in LLM Agent Systems: The Entropy Principle and the Inevitable Disorder of Autonomous Agents
cs.MA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

LLM agent systems accumulate disorder leading to silent failures, formalized by the exponential Entropy Principle S(t) = S0 * e^(alpha * t) with empirically measured alpha, countered by proposed PIG Engine and ADE protocols.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Low Thinking

We first shuffle rollouts and assign half to a reachable group and half to an unreachable group. For reachable rollouts, the target cash is sampled from U(0.50, 1.00)× final cash, clipped so that it does not exceed final cash; the time budget is set to the realized trajectory length, and the warehouse and cost budgets are sampled uniformly between 1.0× an...
[4]

Now, estimate:

You need to finish the task within{max_context_window_tokens}total tokens. Now, estimate:
[5]

Whether the search agent can still finish the task successfully within {max_context_window_tokens}total tokens (input + output)
[8]

If you think the task can finish within budget, make the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

Prioritize the can-finish judgment over interval tightness. If you think the task can finish within budget, make the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Example:For a three-turn interaction, suppose only Turn 1 has been completed. The full interaction is: Turn 1: input X1 tokens, output Y1 tokens; Turn 2: in...
[15]

If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

You should try your best to estimate whether the task can finish within budget (most important). If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Example:For a three-turn interaction, suppose only Turn 1 has been completed. The full interaction is: Turn 1: in...
[16]

The coding agent has completed{completed_turns}turns
[17]

Per-turn token usage so far, excluding reused history from earlier turns, is: {turn_token_usage_text}
[18]

Estimate:

The full task must finish within{max_context_window_tokens}total tokens. Estimate:
[19]

Whether the agent can still finish the software issue successfully within {max_context_window_tokens}total tokens
[20]

Return an interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens

If yes, how many additional tokens (input + output) are still needed from the next turn onward. Return an interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens
[22]

If the task still looks finishable, keep the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

Prioritize the can-finish judgment over interval tightness. If the task still looks finishable, keep the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Think about typical SWE-bench costs such as repository inspection, targeted code edits, running validation commands, reading failures, and one or two repair iterations....
[23]

You have completed{completed_weeks}weeks in{completed_turns}turns
[24]

Current cumulative usage so far: • time_weeks:{current_time_weeks} • warehouse_item_weeks:{current_warehouse_item_weeks} • cumulative_cost_usd:{current_cost_usd}
[25]

To count as finished, final cash must reach at least{target_cash_usd}USD

Current cash is {current_cash_usd} USD. To count as finished, final cash must reach at least{target_cash_usd}USD
[26]

Historical resource consumption by completed step is:{resource_consumption_text}
[27]

The rollout must finish within all three budgets: • time_weeks<={budget_time_weeks} • warehouse_item_weeks<={budget_warehouse_item_weeks} • cumulative_cost_usd<={budget_cost_usd} Now, estimate:
[28]

Whether the rollout can still finish successfully within all three budgets while also reaching the target cash
[29]

Return one interval for each metric

If yes, how much additional usage is still needed from the next turn onward. Return one interval for each metric
[31]

If you think the rollout can finish within budget, make each interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining value

Prioritize the can-finish judgment over interval tightness. If you think the rollout can finish within budget, make each interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining value. Output exactly one of the following: <think>[YOUR THINKING]</think><answer>time_weeks:[est_low, est_high], warehouse_item_weeks:[est_low, est_high], cumulative...
[32]

You have completed{completed_turns}turns
[33]

Each turn, your token consumption is{turn_token_usage_text}
[34]

Now, estimate:

You need to finish the task within{max_context_window_tokens}tokens. Now, estimate:
[35]

Whether you can finish the task successfully within {max_context_window_tokens} total tokens (input + output)
[36]

Return an estimation interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens

If yes, how many additional tokens (input + output) are still needed to finish the task, starting from the next turn. Return an estimation interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens
[37]

impossible

If no, answer "impossible"
[38]

If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

You should try your best to estimate whether the task can finish within budget (most important). If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Example:For a three-turn interaction, suppose only Turn 1 has been completed. The full interaction is: Turn 1: in...

[1] [1]

Low Thinking

We first shuffle rollouts and assign half to a reachable group and half to an unreachable group. For reachable rollouts, the target cash is sampled from U(0.50, 1.00)× final cash, clipped so that it does not exceed final cash; the time budget is set to the realized trajectory length, and the warehouse and cost budgets are sampled uniformly between 1.0× an...

[2] [4]

Now, estimate:

You need to finish the task within{max_context_window_tokens}total tokens. Now, estimate:

[3] [5]

Whether the search agent can still finish the task successfully within {max_context_window_tokens}total tokens (input + output)

[4] [8]

If you think the task can finish within budget, make the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

Prioritize the can-finish judgment over interval tightness. If you think the task can finish within budget, make the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Example:For a three-turn interaction, suppose only Turn 1 has been completed. The full interaction is: Turn 1: input X1 tokens, output Y1 tokens; Turn 2: in...

[5] [15]

If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

You should try your best to estimate whether the task can finish within budget (most important). If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Example:For a three-turn interaction, suppose only Turn 1 has been completed. The full interaction is: Turn 1: in...

[6] [16]

The coding agent has completed{completed_turns}turns

[7] [17]

Per-turn token usage so far, excluding reused history from earlier turns, is: {turn_token_usage_text}

[8] [18]

Estimate:

The full task must finish within{max_context_window_tokens}total tokens. Estimate:

[9] [19]

Whether the agent can still finish the software issue successfully within {max_context_window_tokens}total tokens

[10] [20]

Return an interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens

If yes, how many additional tokens (input + output) are still needed from the next turn onward. Return an interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens

[11] [22]

If the task still looks finishable, keep the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

Prioritize the can-finish judgment over interval tightness. If the task still looks finishable, keep the interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Think about typical SWE-bench costs such as repository inspection, targeted code edits, running validation commands, reading failures, and one or two repair iterations....

[12] [23]

You have completed{completed_weeks}weeks in{completed_turns}turns

[13] [24]

Current cumulative usage so far: • time_weeks:{current_time_weeks} • warehouse_item_weeks:{current_warehouse_item_weeks} • cumulative_cost_usd:{current_cost_usd}

[14] [25]

To count as finished, final cash must reach at least{target_cash_usd}USD

Current cash is {current_cash_usd} USD. To count as finished, final cash must reach at least{target_cash_usd}USD

[15] [26]

Historical resource consumption by completed step is:{resource_consumption_text}

[16] [27]

The rollout must finish within all three budgets: • time_weeks<={budget_time_weeks} • warehouse_item_weeks<={budget_warehouse_item_weeks} • cumulative_cost_usd<={budget_cost_usd} Now, estimate:

[17] [28]

Whether the rollout can still finish successfully within all three budgets while also reaching the target cash

[18] [29]

Return one interval for each metric

If yes, how much additional usage is still needed from the next turn onward. Return one interval for each metric

[19] [31]

If you think the rollout can finish within budget, make each interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining value

Prioritize the can-finish judgment over interval tightness. If you think the rollout can finish within budget, make each interval as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining value. Output exactly one of the following: <think>[YOUR THINKING]</think><answer>time_weeks:[est_low, est_high], warehouse_item_weeks:[est_low, est_high], cumulative...

[20] [32]

You have completed{completed_turns}turns

[21] [33]

Each turn, your token consumption is{turn_token_usage_text}

[22] [34]

Now, estimate:

You need to finish the task within{max_context_window_tokens}tokens. Now, estimate:

[23] [35]

Whether you can finish the task successfully within {max_context_window_tokens} total tokens (input + output)

[24] [36]

Return an estimation interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens

If yes, how many additional tokens (input + output) are still needed to finish the task, starting from the next turn. Return an estimation interval: at least est_low tokens and at most est_high tokens

[25] [37]

impossible

If no, answer "impossible"

[26] [38]

If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget

You should try your best to estimate whether the task can finish within budget (most important). If you think the task can finish within budget, your interval should be as tight as possible while still covering the true remaining token budget. Example:For a three-turn interaction, suppose only Turn 1 has been completed. The full interaction is: Turn 1: in...