Upload docs/literature_review.md
Browse files- docs/literature_review.md +282 -0
docs/literature_review.md
ADDED
|
@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
+
# Literature Review: Agent Cost Optimization
|
| 2 |
+
|
| 3 |
+
## Executive Summary
|
| 4 |
+
|
| 5 |
+
This literature review synthesizes findings from 50+ papers across model routing, context compression, tool-use optimization, verifier gating, and failure recovery. The key insight: **compound optimization** (routing + caching + selective verification + meta-tools) has been studied piecemeal but never as a unified system. This gap is the core opportunity for the Agent Cost Optimizer.
|
| 6 |
+
|
| 7 |
+
---
|
| 8 |
+
|
| 9 |
+
## 1. Model Routing & Cascade Inference
|
| 10 |
+
|
| 11 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 12 |
+
|
| 13 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 14 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 15 |
+
| **FrugalGPT** (Chen et al., 2023) | 98.3% cost reduction on HEADLINES matching GPT-4 accuracy | β
β
β
β
β
Simplest cascade β 3-tier scoring model |
|
| 16 |
+
| **RouteLLM** (Ong et al., 2024) | Preference-trained router, 40%+ cost reduction | β
β
β
β
β Requires preference data |
|
| 17 |
+
| **RouterBench** (Hu et al., 2024) | 405K outcomes, 14 LLMs β standard benchmark | β
β
β
β
β
Go-to dataset |
|
| 18 |
+
| **R2-Router** (2026) | Joint model + length selection | β
β
β
β
β Extends routing to output budgeting |
|
| 19 |
+
| **xRouter** (2025) | RL-trained cost-aware router | β
β
β
β
β End-to-end RL but needs online env |
|
| 20 |
+
| **Arch-Router** (2025) | 1.5B model matches proprietary routers | β
β
β
β
β
Production-ready |
|
| 21 |
+
| **BAAR** (2026) | Step-level routing with GRPO, dominates Pareto frontier | β
β
β
β
β Best for multi-turn agents |
|
| 22 |
+
|
| 23 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 24 |
+
- **FrugalGPT cascade** is the simplest deployable win: cheap β medium β frontier, with a small scoring model gating each level.
|
| 25 |
+
- **RouterBench** provides the training data for any router.
|
| 26 |
+
- **BAAR's boundary-guided SFT + GRPO** is the strongest approach for step-level agent routing.
|
| 27 |
+
|
| 28 |
+
### What Is Overkill
|
| 29 |
+
- Methods requiring online interaction during training (some bandit approaches) are hard to deploy.
|
| 30 |
+
- Methods assuming static API graphs don't adapt to changing tool catalogs.
|
| 31 |
+
|
| 32 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 33 |
+
- No unified router that jointly optimizes: model, context length, tool batching, and verification in one decision.
|
| 34 |
+
- No router trained on agent traces with multi-step outcomes.
|
| 35 |
+
|
| 36 |
+
---
|
| 37 |
+
|
| 38 |
+
## 2. Prompt Caching & Context Compression
|
| 39 |
+
|
| 40 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 41 |
+
|
| 42 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 43 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 44 |
+
| **CacheGen** (2023) | KV cache compression via adaptive quantization | β
β
β
β
β Reduces bandwidth |
|
| 45 |
+
| **H2O** (2023) | 20% KV budget maintains accuracy; 29Γ throughput | β
β
β
β
β
Already in vLLM |
|
| 46 |
+
| **StreamingLLM** (2023) | Attention sinks for infinite-length generation | β
β
β
β
β
Production standard |
|
| 47 |
+
| **CacheBlend** (2024) | Selective recompute for RAG KV caches | β
β
β
β
β Best for RAG |
|
| 48 |
+
| **EpiCache** (2025) | Episodic KV management for long QA | β
β
β
β
β Apple, strong for chat |
|
| 49 |
+
| **KVCOMM** (2025) | Cross-agent KV cache sharing | β
β
β
β
β Multi-agent systems |
|
| 50 |
+
|
| 51 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 52 |
+
- **Prefix caching** (vLLM/SGLang/DeepSeek) gives ~50% cost reduction on repeated system prompts.
|
| 53 |
+
- **H2O/StreamingLLM** are essential for long-context agents.
|
| 54 |
+
- **Cache-aware prompt layout** (stable prefix + dynamic suffix) is a free optimization.
|
| 55 |
+
|
| 56 |
+
### What Is Overkill
|
| 57 |
+
- Full KV cache compression methods (CacheGen, KVzip) require inference-system integration that most agent harnesses don't control.
|
| 58 |
+
- Cross-agent KV sharing (KVCOMM) is niche.
|
| 59 |
+
|
| 60 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 61 |
+
- No "cache budgeter" that decides *which* context to cache based on predicted reuse frequency.
|
| 62 |
+
- No cost-aware context eviction policy for agents with mixed short/long tasks.
|
| 63 |
+
|
| 64 |
+
---
|
| 65 |
+
|
| 66 |
+
## 3. Tool-Use Routing & Optimization
|
| 67 |
+
|
| 68 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 69 |
+
|
| 70 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 71 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 72 |
+
| **Graph-Based Self-Healing Tool Routing** (2026) | 93% control-plane LLM call reduction | β
β
β
β
β
Deterministic graph routing |
|
| 73 |
+
| **Optimizing Agentic Workflows (AWO)** (2026) | 11.9% LLM call reduction, +4.2pp success | β
β
β
β
β
Meta-tool extraction |
|
| 74 |
+
| **Less is More** (2024) | Reducing tool count improves edge performance | β
β
β
ββ Edge-specific |
|
| 75 |
+
| **Small Model as Master Orchestrator** (2026) | Lightweight orchestrator for parallel decomposition | β
β
β
β
β Unified action space |
|
| 76 |
+
| **CASTER** (2026) | Dual-signal router for multi-agent graph workflows | β
β
β
β
β Graph-based systems |
|
| 77 |
+
|
| 78 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 79 |
+
- **Self-Healing Tool Routing** eliminates LLM calls for 93% of tool decisions by using Dijkstra on a cost-weighted tool graph.
|
| 80 |
+
- **AWO meta-tools** compress repeated multi-step patterns into deterministic macros.
|
| 81 |
+
|
| 82 |
+
### What Is Overkill
|
| 83 |
+
- Full multi-agent orchestration frameworks (CASTER) are powerful but heavy for simple tool pipelines.
|
| 84 |
+
|
| 85 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 86 |
+
- No "tool necessity predictor" that decides *whether* to call a tool at all, not just which one.
|
| 87 |
+
- No cost-aware batching that groups independent tool calls while respecting dependencies.
|
| 88 |
+
|
| 89 |
+
---
|
| 90 |
+
|
| 91 |
+
## 4. Verifier Gating & Selective Verification
|
| 92 |
+
|
| 93 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 94 |
+
|
| 95 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 96 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 97 |
+
| **Self-Calibration** (2025) | ECE 13.70β3.79, accuracy β3pp | β
β
β
β
β Requires SFT |
|
| 98 |
+
| **ESC** (2024) | 33-84% sampling cost reduction, zero accuracy loss | β
β
β
β
β
Drop-in replacement |
|
| 99 |
+
| **SmartSnap** (2025) | Proactive evidence seeking for self-verification | β
β
β
β
β RL-based |
|
| 100 |
+
| **The Art of Building Verifiers** (2026) | 4 design principles for computer-use agents | β
β
β
β
β
Practical framework |
|
| 101 |
+
| **Generalized Correctness Model** (2025) | Cross-model verification, selective deferral | β
β
β
ββ Needs multi-model labels |
|
| 102 |
+
| **Agentic Confidence Calibration** (2026) | Trajectory-based calibration across systems | β
β
β
β
β Multi-agent focus |
|
| 103 |
+
|
| 104 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 105 |
+
- **Early-Stopping Self-Consistency (ESC)** is the highest-ROI change: replace standard self-consistency with window-based stopping.
|
| 106 |
+
- **Self-Calibration** enables single-forward-pass confidence for routing and early stopping.
|
| 107 |
+
- **Heuristic verifier budgeter** (risk-weighted) is sufficient for most agents.
|
| 108 |
+
|
| 109 |
+
### What Is Overkill
|
| 110 |
+
- Training a Generalized Correctness Model across 10+ LLMs is expensive and data-hungry.
|
| 111 |
+
- Formal verification frameworks (VeriGuard) are essential only for safety-critical applications.
|
| 112 |
+
|
| 113 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 114 |
+
- No verifier that can estimate its *own* reliability per task type and adjust thresholds.
|
| 115 |
+
- No framework for "verifier cascading" (cheap verifier first, expensive one only on disagreement).
|
| 116 |
+
|
| 117 |
+
---
|
| 118 |
+
|
| 119 |
+
## 5. Early Exit & Failure Detection
|
| 120 |
+
|
| 121 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 122 |
+
|
| 123 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 124 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 125 |
+
| **VLAA-GUI** (2026) | Modular framework for GUI agent stopping/loop breaking | β
β
β
β
β
Modular |
|
| 126 |
+
| **LYNX** (2025) | Hidden-state early-exit for reasoning | β
β
β
β
β Requires model access |
|
| 127 |
+
| **SpecExit** (2025) | Speculative exit for reasoning models | β
β
β
β
β Reduces generation length |
|
| 128 |
+
| **FAMA** (2026) | Failure-aware meta-agent, +4.6-11.6% on Ο-bench | β
β
β
β
β Failure clustering |
|
| 129 |
+
| **Confidence Dichotomy** (2026) | Tool-use agents have task-specific calibration | β
β
β
β
β RL calibration |
|
| 130 |
+
|
| 131 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 132 |
+
- **Doom detection via signal aggregation** (repeated failures, cost explosion, stagnant progress) is the practical approach.
|
| 133 |
+
- **FAMA's failure clustering** identifies dominant error patterns for targeted recovery.
|
| 134 |
+
|
| 135 |
+
### What Is Overkill
|
| 136 |
+
- Hidden-state early exit requires model weights access β not available for API-only agents.
|
| 137 |
+
- Speculative exit requires model architecture changes.
|
| 138 |
+
|
| 139 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 140 |
+
- No "run health score" that combines all signals into a single terminate/continue decision with calibrated confidence.
|
| 141 |
+
- No online learning from false-stop vs. false-continue outcomes.
|
| 142 |
+
|
| 143 |
+
---
|
| 144 |
+
|
| 145 |
+
## 6. Test-Time Compute Allocation
|
| 146 |
+
|
| 147 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 148 |
+
|
| 149 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 150 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 151 |
+
| **Trust but Verify Survey** (2025) | Comprehensive taxonomy of TTS methods | β
β
β
β
β
Reference |
|
| 152 |
+
| **PAG** (2025) | Policy-as-Verifier for multi-turn self-correction | β
β
β
β
β RL framework |
|
| 153 |
+
| **Compute-Optimal Scaling** (various) | Best-of-N and PRM for reasoning | β
β
β
β
β Math-focused |
|
| 154 |
+
| **Self-Healing Tool Router** (2026) | Cost-weighted graph routing as compute allocation | β
β
β
β
β
Practical |
|
| 155 |
+
|
| 156 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 157 |
+
- **Best-of-N with early stopping** (ESC) is the most practical test-time scaling optimization.
|
| 158 |
+
- **Process Reward Models** are powerful but require training data.
|
| 159 |
+
|
| 160 |
+
### What Is Overkill
|
| 161 |
+
- Full MCTS search over reasoning paths is too expensive for most agent tasks.
|
| 162 |
+
|
| 163 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 164 |
+
- No adaptive compute allocator that distributes budget across: routing, tool calls, verification, and model strength.
|
| 165 |
+
|
| 166 |
+
---
|
| 167 |
+
|
| 168 |
+
## 7. Meta-Tool & Workflow Compression
|
| 169 |
+
|
| 170 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 171 |
+
|
| 172 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 173 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 174 |
+
| **AWO** (2026) | State-graph merging, hot-path extraction | β
β
β
β
β
No training needed |
|
| 175 |
+
| **Agent-as-Tool** (2026) | Unified parallel orchestration | β
β
β
β
β Standardized action space |
|
| 176 |
+
| **WebClipper** (2026) | Graph-based trajectory pruning for web agents | β
β
β
β
β Web-specific |
|
| 177 |
+
|
| 178 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 179 |
+
- **AWO's trace β state graph β hot path β meta-tool** pipeline is directly applicable.
|
| 180 |
+
- Meta-tools eliminate LLM reasoning for known sub-routines.
|
| 181 |
+
|
| 182 |
+
### What Is Overkill
|
| 183 |
+
- Full workflow synthesis from scratch is complex; incremental mining from traces is better.
|
| 184 |
+
|
| 185 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 186 |
+
- No "meta-tool validation" step that checks whether a compressed workflow still handles edge cases.
|
| 187 |
+
- No A/B testing framework for meta-tool vs. original LLM-based execution.
|
| 188 |
+
|
| 189 |
+
---
|
| 190 |
+
|
| 191 |
+
## 8. Cost-Quality Frontiers
|
| 192 |
+
|
| 193 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 194 |
+
|
| 195 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 196 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 197 |
+
| **RouterBench** (2024) | Systematic cost-quality evaluation framework | β
β
β
β
β
Standard |
|
| 198 |
+
| **R2-Bench** (2026) | Length-constrained cost-quality benchmark | β
β
β
β
β Extends RouterBench |
|
| 199 |
+
| **BAAR** (2026) | Pareto frontier on ALFWorld, SciWorld, AppWorld | β
β
β
β
β Interactive agents |
|
| 200 |
+
|
| 201 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 202 |
+
- RouterBench provides the evaluation protocol.
|
| 203 |
+
- Pareto frontier plotting (cost vs. accuracy) is the correct way to compare systems.
|
| 204 |
+
|
| 205 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 206 |
+
- No benchmark that measures cost-quality frontier for *compound* optimizations simultaneously.
|
| 207 |
+
|
| 208 |
+
---
|
| 209 |
+
|
| 210 |
+
## 9. Confidence Calibration
|
| 211 |
+
|
| 212 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 213 |
+
|
| 214 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 215 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 216 |
+
| **Self-Calibration** (2025) | Distills self-consistency into model confidence | β
β
β
β
β SFT required |
|
| 217 |
+
| **Agentic Confidence Calibration** (2026) | Trajectory-level calibration | β
β
β
β
β Multi-agent |
|
| 218 |
+
| **Black-Box Reliability** (2026) | Self-consistency + conformal calibration | β
β
β
β
β
Distribution-free guarantees |
|
| 219 |
+
|
| 220 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 221 |
+
- Self-consistency-based confidence is the most reliable signal for black-box APIs.
|
| 222 |
+
- Calibration enables better routing, early stopping, and verifier gating.
|
| 223 |
+
|
| 224 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 225 |
+
- No calibration method specifically for multi-step agent traces with tool outcomes.
|
| 226 |
+
|
| 227 |
+
---
|
| 228 |
+
|
| 229 |
+
## 10. Retrieval Gating & Context Selection
|
| 230 |
+
|
| 231 |
+
### What Exists
|
| 232 |
+
|
| 233 |
+
| Paper | Key Result | Practicality |
|
| 234 |
+
|-------|-----------|--------------|
|
| 235 |
+
| **CacheBlend** (2024) | Selective KV recompute for RAG | β
β
β
β
β RAG-specific |
|
| 236 |
+
| **DynamicKV** (2024) | Task-aware KV compression | β
β
β
β
β Long-context |
|
| 237 |
+
| **CompressKV** (2025) | Semantic retrieval heads for token importance | β
β
β
ββ Research |
|
| 238 |
+
|
| 239 |
+
### What Is Useful
|
| 240 |
+
- **Context budgeters** that select which chunks to include based on predicted relevance are practical.
|
| 241 |
+
- **H2O** shows that only 20% of KV cache is needed.
|
| 242 |
+
|
| 243 |
+
### What Is Missing
|
| 244 |
+
- No "learned context selector" that is trained end-to-end with the router to maximize task success per token.
|
| 245 |
+
|
| 246 |
+
---
|
| 247 |
+
|
| 248 |
+
## Recommendations for Implementation
|
| 249 |
+
|
| 250 |
+
### Phase 1 (Immediate)
|
| 251 |
+
1. **Deploy FrugalGPT cascade** β 50-98% cost reduction, simple scoring model
|
| 252 |
+
2. **Enable prefix caching** β Free optimization for repeated system/tool prompts
|
| 253 |
+
3. **Replace self-consistency with ESC** β 33-84% sampling reduction, zero accuracy loss
|
| 254 |
+
|
| 255 |
+
### Phase 2 (Short-term)
|
| 256 |
+
4. **Train self-calibration model** β Enables confidence-based routing and early stopping
|
| 257 |
+
5. **Implement AWO meta-tools** β Collect 100+ traces, extract hot paths
|
| 258 |
+
6. **Build heuristic verifier budgeter** β Risk-weighted selective verification
|
| 259 |
+
|
| 260 |
+
### Phase 3 (Medium-term)
|
| 261 |
+
7. **Deploy BAAR step-level routing** β GRPO-trained router for multi-turn agents
|
| 262 |
+
8. **Add self-healing tool graph** β Dijkstra routing for API-heavy agents
|
| 263 |
+
9. **Implement doom detector** β Multi-signal early termination
|
| 264 |
+
|
| 265 |
+
### Phase 4 (Long-term)
|
| 266 |
+
10. **Train unified compound optimizer** β Jointly optimize all 10 dimensions
|
| 267 |
+
11. **Online learning from traces** β Update policies based on real deployment outcomes
|
| 268 |
+
12. **Cross-agent cache sharing** β KVCOMM-style sharing for multi-agent systems
|
| 269 |
+
|
| 270 |
+
---
|
| 271 |
+
|
| 272 |
+
## Key Gaps & Opportunities
|
| 273 |
+
|
| 274 |
+
| Gap | Opportunity |
|
| 275 |
+
|-----|-------------|
|
| 276 |
+
| No unified compound optimizer | **Agent Cost Optimizer** fills this gap |
|
| 277 |
+
| No benchmark for compound optimization | Create AgentCostBench |
|
| 278 |
+
| No online learning for routing | Deploy Thompson sampling / contextual bandits |
|
| 279 |
+
| No verifier cascading | Build cheap β expensive verifier chains |
|
| 280 |
+
| No cache budgeter | Learn which prefixes to cache |
|
| 281 |
+
| No meta-tool validation | A/B test compressed vs. original workflows |
|
| 282 |
+
| No trajectory-level calibration | Extend Self-Calibration to multi-step |
|