Pixels for Programs? A Cross-Provider Case Study of Input-Token Accounting for Source Code as Text and Images

Tool-augmented vision-language models increasingly "think with images": they call crop, zoom, or code tools and reason over the returned pixels. However, recent work using blind tests, gain decompositions, and attention analyses has shown that returned images contribute little, raising the question: if pixels do not carry the gain, what does? We hypothesize that the load-bearing signal is the structured text emitted before any returned pixel arrives: tool name, coordinates, target description, and intent. This textual scaffold encodes where to look and what to find. We introduce TextCall (call-but-no-return) to test this: it keeps the scaffold but replaces returned images with the text placeholder [Image output skipped]. Three studies support the hypothesis. (i) Non-necessity of returned pixels: across LoRA, full fine-tuning, and RL, TextCall matches or exceeds full thinking-with-images; under RL it preserves tool use at the reported checkpoint, avoiding the failure mode where, under matched settings, seeing the returned image causes the model to stop calling tools and answer directly. (ii) Sufficiency of the scaffold: on matched training queries, scaffold-only input yields equivalent accuracy to returned-image input. (iii) Component specificity: decomposing the scaffold into reasoning text and spatial code shows both components contribute, with the dominant one varying by task. Together these results support the Tool-Call Scaffold Hypothesis: in current thinking-with-images distributions, the active signal is the structured text emitted at tool-call time; the returned image is a redundant carrier. TextCall preserves accuracy while reducing latency by 29-46% and eliminating tool-execution API calls. Our claims hold for current thinking-with-images benchmarks; constructing tasks where pixels are genuinely load-bearing remains an open direction.

Image-to-code generation tests whether a vision-language model (VLM) can recover the structure of an image enough to express it as executable code. Existing benchmarks either focus on narrow visual domains, depend on paired executable reference code, or rely on generic rubrics that miss domain-specific reconstruction errors. We introduce Vision2Code, a reference-code-free benchmark and evaluation framework for multi-domain image-to-code generation. Vision2Code contains 2,169 test examples from 15 source datasets that span charts and plots, geometry, graphs, scientific imagery, documents, and 3D spatial scenes. Models generate executable programs, which we render and score against the source image using a VLM rater with dataset-specific rubrics and deterministic guardrails for severe semantic failures. We report render-success diagnostics that separate code execution failures from reconstruction quality. Human validation shows that this evaluation protocol aligns better with human judgments than either a generic visual rubric or embedding-similarity baselines. Across nine open-weight and proprietary models, we find that image-to-code performance is domain-dependent: leading models perform well on regular chart- and graph-like visuals but remain weak on spatial scenes, chemistry, documents, and circuit-style diagrams. Finally, we show that evaluator-filtered model outputs can serve as training data to improve image-to-code capability, with Qwen3.5-9B improving from 1.60 to 1.86 on the benchmark without paired source programs. Vision2Code provides a reproducible testbed for measuring, diagnosing, and improving image-to-code generation. Our code and data are publicly available at https://image2code.github.io/vision2code/.

The wide adoption of AI agents in complex human workflows is driving rapid growth in LLM token consumption. When agents are deployed on tasks that require a significant amount of tokens, three questions naturally arise: (1) Where do AI agents spend the tokens? (2) Which models are more token-efficient? and (3) Can agents predict their token usage before task execution? In this paper, we present the first systematic study of token consumption patterns in agentic coding tasks. We analyze trajectories from eight frontier LLMs on SWE-bench Verified and evaluate models' ability to predict their own token costs before task execution. We find that: (1) agentic tasks are uniquely expensive, consuming 1000x more tokens than code reasoning and code chat, with input tokens rather than output tokens driving the overall cost; (2) token usage is highly variable and inherently stochastic: runs on the same task can differ by up to 30x in total tokens, and higher token usage does not translate into higher accuracy; instead, accuracy often peaks at intermediate cost and saturates at higher costs; (3) models vary substantially in token efficiency: on the same tasks, Kimi-K2 and Claude-Sonnet-4.5, on average, consume over 1.5 million more tokens than GPT-5; (4) task difficulty rated by human experts only weakly aligns with actual token costs, revealing a fundamental gap between human-perceived complexity and the computational effort agents actually expend; and (5) frontier models fail to accurately predict their own token usage (with weak-to-moderate correlations, up to 0.39) and systematically underestimate real token costs. Our study offers new insights into the economics of AI agents and can inspire future research in this direction.