Current test-time scaling (TTS) techniques enhance large language model (LLM) performance by allocating additional computation at inference time, yet they remain insufficient for agentic settings, where actions directly interact with external environments and their effects can be irreversible and costly. We propose ARTIS, Agentic Risk-Aware Test-Time Scaling via Iterative Simulation, a framework that decouples exploration from commitment by enabling test-time exploration through simulated interactions prior to real-world execution. This design allows extending inference-time computation to improve action-level reliability and robustness without incurring environmental risk. We further show that naive LLM-based simulators struggle to capture rare but high-impact failure modes, substantially limiting their effectiveness for agentic decision making. To address this limitation, we introduce a risk-aware tool simulator that emphasizes fidelity on failure-inducing actions via targeted data generation and rebalanced training. Experiments on multi-turn and multi-step agentic benchmarks demonstrate that iterative simulation substantially improves agent reliability, and that risk-aware simulation is essential for consistently realizing these gains across models and tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Preliminary results on Qwen3-8B. “N” denotes the maximum number of allowed attempts.
Figure 2: The overall framework for ARTIS, where two modes of Iterative Simulation are shown.
Figure 3: Tool simulator building procedure.
Methods
BFCL-v3 Multi-Turn
ACEBench Agent
Overall
Base
Miss Func
Miss Param
Long Context
End-to-End
Process
Qwen3-8B
12.88
21.00
11.50
9.50
9.50
10.00
14.60
+ Weighted BoN
15.50
24.00
1 6.00
10.50
11.50
15.00
17.60
+ Sequential Revision
16.50
25.50
16.50
1 2.50
11.50
20.00
20.00
+ ARTIS (Parallel)
1 7.75
2 7.50
11.50
16.00
1 6.00
3 5.00
4 3.10
+ ARTIS (Sequential)
18.75
29.50
16.50
1 2.50
16.50
40.00
52.10
Table 1: Main comparison results (accuracy, %) on two benchmarks. Each model is evaluated under two baseline settings (without simulation) and two variants of our method. The best performance in each category within each model is highlighted in bold , while the second best result is u nderlined.
Figure 5Table 6
Method
Failure Detection
State-Changing Errors
Action-Level Acc. ↑
Macro Prec. ↑
Macro Rec. ↑
Macro F1 ↑
RAER ↓
SAER ↓
Direct
–
–
–
–
39.45
71.52
Sequential Revision
–
–
–
–
31.91
59.76
ARTIS (Normal Training)
9 8.57
8 1.72
8 1.12
8 1.39
2 4.52
5 2.25
ARTIS (Failure-Driven)
99.14
95.15
92.58
93.42
23.76
50.99
Table 4: Failure-specific simulator evaluation and state-changing action errors on the BFCL-v3(%). Failure detection metrics compare simulator predictions with real execution outcomes; RAER and SAER evaluate committed trajectories (lower is better).
Figure 6: Accuracy and evaluation pass rate comparison for different evaluators and summarizers (all Qwen3 models, noted by “Evaluator/Summarizer”). Action agents are 8B.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
N
ACC
API Call Count (#)
Completion Token Count (K#)
Prompt Token Count (K#)
(%)
Total
Action
Self-Eval
Total
Action
Self-Eval
Total
Action
Self-Eval
Direct
0
21.0
2497
2497
–
80
80
–
15168
15168
–
1
23.0
5372
2686
2686
718
87
631
48922
16471
32451
3
23.5
14588
7475
7113
2339
333
2005
207516
87190
120326
Sequential
5
25.5
26322
13245
13077
3659
494
3165
322449
167564
154885
Revision
8
27.0
39752
20176
19576
5697
814
4883
545918
287325
258592
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of the baseline Sequential Revision and ARTIS (Sequential) when scaling N .
Methods
BFCL v3
MT-Base
Qwen3-8B
21.0
+ Perfect Simulator
30.5
+ Self Simulator (Qwen3-8B)
14.0
+ Source Code
22.0
+ Strong Simulator (Qwen3-32B)
22.0
Appendix
Table 6: Results on general-purpose LLMs as simulators with different settings.
Methods
BFCL v3
ACEBench
MT-Base
Agent Process
Qwen3-8B
21.0
14.6
+ ARTIS (Sequential)
29.5
52.1
- Sum
18.5
24.6
Replace Sum with Majority Voting
27.5
36.4
Replace Sum with Best of N
29.5
28.1
Appendix
Table 7: Results on comparisons of summarization and other choices.
Methods
BFCL v3
ACEBench
MT-Base
Agent Process
Qwen3-4B
16.5
6.7
+ Sequential Revision
11.0
32.1
+ ARTIS (Sequential)
15.0
30.6
+ Perfect Simulator
24.5
26.7
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
11.0
6.5
Appendix
Table 8: Results on smaller or less capable backbones, which may fail to realize observable gains.
Methods
BFCL v3 Live
ACEBench Single-Turn
Overall
Simple
Multiple
Parallel
Para. Multi.
Overall
Single Func
Parallel Func
Qwen3-8B
73.87
77.52
73.22
68.75
6 6.67
62.50
73.00
52.00
+ Sequential Revision
74.09
81.40
72.27
87.50
6 6.67
62.50
68.00
57.00
+ ARTIS (Sequential)
74.32
8 0.62
72.65
8 1.25
75.00
64.00
69.00
59.00
Qwen3-32B
79.57
8 0.62
79.68
8 1.25
62.50
7 0.50
7 5.00
66.00
+ Sequential Revision
80.01
79.46
80.25
8 1.25
75.00
71.50
78.00
6 5.00
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy (%) comparison on single-turn cases of two benchmarks. The best performance in each category is highlighted in bold , while the second best result is u nderlined.
Figure 7: Thinking vs Non-Thinking.
Methods
Overall
Base
Miss Func
Miss Param
Long Context
Seen Tools
Direct
15.31 ± 0.83
27.50 ± 1.25
14.58 ± 0.72
10.83 ± 1.44
8.33 ± 0.72
Sequential Revision
15.94 ± 0.31
28.33 ± 0.72
13.75 ± 1.25
13.33 ± 3.82
8.33 ± 0.72
ARTIS (Normal Training)
15.83 ± 0.65
29.58 ± 2.60
12.08 ± 1.44
10.83 ± 1.91
10.83 ± 2.60
ARTIS (Failure-Driven)
17.92 ± 0.79
33.33 ± 1.44
12.92 ± 0.72
12.92 ± 3.82
12.50 ± 2.17
Unseen Tools
Appendix
Table 10: Accuracy (%) on the strict BFCL seen/unseen tool split with Qwen3-8B as the action agent. Results are “mean ± std” over three runs. Best means within each split are in bold .
Method
Accuracy ↑
Compute per Case ↓
Overall
Base
Miss Func
Miss Param
Long Context
LM Calls
Simulated Tool Steps
Tokens
WMA-style
15.57
21.05
13.16
12.28
15.79
196.0
83.1
1.30M
SVS-style
15.03
20.18
11.84
11.40
16.67
192.0
84.6
1.27M
ARTIS
17.00
22.81
12.72
12.72
19.74
115.7
65.3
0.96M
Appendix
Table 11: Matched simulator-assisted baseline result comparisons (Accuracy (%)) on the BFCL-v3 unseen-tool split using Qwen3-8B and the same failure-driven simulator. Compute is reported per case across all four categories. Tokens include input and output (M: million). Best means are in bold .
LLM agents often degrade over long episodes: as trajectories grow, they revisit explored states, repeat failed actions, and lose strategies that previously worked. Test-time training (TTT) offers a way to adapt model weights to the evolving task state, but existing LLM TTT methods largely adapt once to a fixed input. We study continuous TTT in multi-turn agent episodes, where each update changes the policy that generates later training text. This creates a self-training loop that helps when new trajectory information appears, but can amplify drift when the agent gets stuck and repeatedly trains on similar text. We find that update-text repetition distinguishes these regimes and introduce Agentic Test-Time Training (aTTT), a token-level reweighting method that downweights the loss on tokens appearing in repeated n-grams from prior updates while leaving novel tokens fully weighted. To run such updates inside live episodes, we build a concurrent serving system using vLLM's runtime LoRA API, limiting overhead to 1.9× the no-TTT cost. aTTT improves success by up to 5.0 points on ALFWorld and 4.9 points on SWE-bench Lite. The gains concentrate where models already have task competence but drift over long trajectories, suggesting that aTTT mainly preserves existing competence rather than teaching new abilities.
Test-time scaling (TTS) has become an effective approach for improving large language model performance by allocating additional computation during inference. However, existing TTS strategies are largely hand-crafted: researchers manually design reasoning patterns and tune heuristics by intuition, leaving much of the computation-allocation space unexplored. We propose an environment-driven framework, AutoTTS, that changes what researchers design: from individual TTS heuristics to environments where TTS strategies can be discovered automatically. The key to AutoTTS lies in environment construction: the discovery environment must make the control space tractable and provide cheap, frequent feedback for TTS search. As a concrete instantiation, we formulate width--depth TTS as controller synthesis over pre-collected reasoning trajectories and probe signals, where controllers decide when to branch, continue, probe, prune, or stop and can be evaluated cheaply without repeated LLM calls. We further introduce beta parameterization to make the search tractable and fine-grained execution trace feedback to improve discovery efficiency by helping the agent diagnose why a TTS program fails. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that the discovered strategies improve the overall accuracy--cost tradeoff over strong manually designed baselines. The discovered strategies generalize to held-out benchmarks and model scales, while the entire discovery costs only $39.9 and 160 minutes. Our data, and code will be open-source at https://github.com/zhengkid/AutoTTS.
LLM agents are increasingly expected to operate as general-purpose systems that resolve real-world user requests, yet their dynamic scaling behavior in realistic environments remains poorly understood. In this paper, we systematically investigate two principal test-time scaling axes of LLM agents: sequential scaling through extended interaction and parallel scaling through trajectory sampling. We first introduce a realistic benchmark that provides one unified framework for evaluating LLM agents across search, coding, reasoning, and tool-use domains, more faithfully reflecting the heterogeneity of real-world deployments. Evaluating ten leading LLM agents reveals substantial performance degradation when transitioning from domain-specific evaluations to this realistic setting. Building on this foundation, we progressively scale test-time compute along fine-grained increments to characterize the performance upper bound. We find that neither scaling axis can consistently yield meaningful gains from additional test-time compute in realistic environments, a phenomenon we attribute to two fundamental limitations: the scaling plateau that bottlenecks sequential scaling and the verification gap that undermines parallel scaling. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/cxcscmu/General-AgentBench.
Xiaochuan Li, Ryan Ming, Pranav Setlur +6
Language Technologies Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University · Meta