Coding agents perform long-running tasks spanning dozens of model calls, tool uses, and code edits. As these runs unfold, users face a practical cost-quality trade-off: escalating to a stronger model when a cheaper one struggles, or downshifting once the hard reasoning is complete. Each switch requires the receiver to continue a non-native trajectory produced by another model. We study how this handoff affects quality and cost, and how varying the trajectory information inherited by the receiver changes the outcome. Using pairs of low-cost, low-capability (LC) and high-cost, high-capability (HC) models from the Claude and GPT families, we vary handoff direction, timing, and interface, comparing full-trajectory transfer, compaction, and trajectory removal while preserving the repository state. Across both model families, full-trajectory escalation recovers less than half of the LC-to-HC quality gap while incurring a substantial cost premium. We term this cost-quality penalty the handoff tax. By contrast, downshift offers a favorable cost-quality point. Interestingly, the preferred interface also reverses with direction: reducing LC-model trajectory information improves escalation quality, whereas removing the HC-model trajectory reduces downshift quality.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Handoff Tax. (a) Users escalate to a high cost model (HC) when the cheaper model (LC) struggles, or downshift to a cheaper one once hard reasoning appears complete. (b) At handoff, the receiver inherits another model’s trajectory. We ask how this affects cost and quality, and how varying the transferred trajectory information shapes the effect.
Figure 2: Handoff interfaces. All strategies preserve the prefix model’s edited working tree at the switch but vary the trajectory information transferred to the suffix: the full trajectory ( Raw ), a summary written by the prefix or suffix model ( Compact pre / Compact suf ), or none ( Traj-drop ).
Claude (Haiku 4.5 / Opus 4.7)
GPT-5.6 (Luna / Sol)
Strategy
Pass
Cost
Steps
QRec
CSRet
Strategy
Pass
Cost
Steps
QRec
CSRet
(a) Escalation (LC → HC)
LC-only
60.7
0.40
80
0
100
LC-only
58.7
0.06
14
0
100
HC-only
79.2
0.72
31
100
0
HC-only
83.7
0.47
17
100
0
Abort + HC fresh
79.2 †
0.90
78
100†
−58
Abort + HC fresh
83.7 †
0.51
27
100†
−11
LC-full + HC-full
79.2 †
1.12
111
100†
−130
LC-full + HC-full
83.7 †
0.53
31
100†
−15
Table 1: Aggregate coding-agent handoffs across model pairs. Raw escalation recovers less than half of HC’s quality advantage, whereas downshift offers a favorable intermediate cost–quality point. Reducing inherited LC context improves escalation, while preserving HC context improves downshift. Values are unweighted means over seven switch points on matched switched subsets; QRec and CSRet follow Sec. 3.4 .
Figure 3: Handoff effects vary with task difficulty. For Claude, all escalation interfaces are unfavorable on easy and medium tasks, but on hard tasks reduced-context interfaces become cheaper than HC-only while recovering 65–74% of HC’s quality advantage; Raw does not make this transition. In downshift, dropping the HC trajectory yields the worst cost–quality trade-off among tested interfaces in every difficulty bucket.
Figure 4: The handoff tax arises through different computational mechanisms. In Claude escalation, Raw makes each post-handoff HC step 2.2× costlier than Compact pre ; in downshift, Traj-drop makes LC take 1.6× more steps. Full LC context inflates HC calls, whereas missing HC context forces LC rework.
Figure 5: Task-relevant information evolves differently across settings. SWE-bench provides the specification upfront, followed by rapid repository scoping; LiC reveals user requirements over turns; BrowseComp accumulates evidence through web search. The schematic illustrates what information is available at different stages of execution.
Tasks
Policy
Score
Cost
QRec
CSRet
[-0.1em]
LC-only
62.1
0.015
0
100
HC-only
76.9
0.080
100
0
Escalation
74.2
0.056
86
36
Downshift
67.0
0.046
31
53
Table 2: Late-arriving requirements favor an HC suffix. Raw-handoff results on LiC, averaged across five task families and early, middle, and late structural switch positions for Claude.
Strategy
QRec
CSRet
Steps
LC
HC
Full LC + full HC
100.0
−40.1
62.6
33.4
Abort + fresh HC
100.0
−8.5
23.0
33.4
Escalation
95.8
−30.0
23.0
30.4
Downshift
56.7
76.8
22.8
17.0
Table 3: Under progressive search, escalation recovers quality but not savings. GPT Raw-handoff results on BrowseComp, averaged across switch points.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: GPT exhibits the same handoff-cost accounting pattern as Claude. Relative to Compact pre , each post-handoff HC step under Raw costs 1.6× as much, while Traj-drop downshift takes 2.0× as many post-handoff LC steps.
Claude (Haiku 4.5 / Opus 4.7)
GPT-5.6 (Luna / Sol)
Strategy
Pass
Cost
Steps
QRec
CSRet
Strategy
Pass
Cost
Steps
QRec
CSRet
All
LC-only
60.7
0.40
80
0
100
LC-only
58.7
0.06
14
0
100
HC-only
79.2
0.72
31
100
0
HC-only
83.7
0.47
17
100
0
Abort + HC fresh
79.2 †
0.90
78
100†
−58
Abort + HC fresh
83.7 †
0.51
27
100†
−11
LC-full + HC-full
79.2 †
1.12
111
100†
−130
LC-full + HC-full
83.7 †
0.53
31
100†
−14
Appendix
Table 5: Coding-agent escalation by switch-timing window. Columns compare model families. All averages p5–p50, Early averages {p5,p10,p15}, and Late averages {p25,p35,p45,p50}. Values are unweighted means over switch points on matched switched subsets. Pass is in percent, Cost in dollars, and Steps is the mean trajectory length. QRec is recovered LC–HC quality gap; CSRet is retained cost savings, with negative values costlier than HC-only. Gray rows are single-model baselines and restart references. Bold marks the best available handoff quality and best non-baseline cost/efficiency within each family and timing window.
Claude (Haiku 4.5 / Opus 4.7)
GPT-5.6 (Luna / Sol)
Strategy
Pass
Cost
Steps
QRec
CSRet
Strategy
Pass
Cost
Steps
QRec
CSRet
All
LC-only
54.6
0.41
79
0
100
LC-only
63.6
0.05
13
0
100
HC-only
75.8
0.85
35
100
0
HC-only
85.8
0.47
18
100
0
Raw handoff
65.6
0.51
58
50
80
Raw handoff
81.0
0.42
16
79
14
Compact pre
66.8
0.52
54
56
78
Compact pre
79.8
0.43
18
72
10
Appendix
Table 6: Coding-agent downshift by switch-timing window. Columns compare model families. All averages p5–p50, Early averages {p5,p10,p15}, and Late averages {p25,p35,p45,p50}. Values are unweighted means over switch points on matched switched subsets. Pass is in percent, Cost in dollars, and Steps is the mean trajectory length. QRec is recovered LC–HC quality gap; CSRet is retained cost savings. Gray rows are single-model baselines. Bold marks the best available handoff quality and best non-baseline cost/efficiency within each family and timing window.
Strategy
Pass
Cost
Steps
QRec
CSRet
(%)
($)
(#)
(%)
(%)
LC-only
60.6
0.41
80
0
100
HC-only
78.8
0.72
31
100
0
Raw handoff
69.3
1.62
74
48
−285
Raw + disclosure
70.5
1.67
75
55
−300
Compact pre
71.5
0.75
71
60
−10
Appendix
Table 7: Escalation (LC → HC), averaged over all switch points. Intersection-only results average p5–p50 unweighted. QRec is quality-gap recovery and CSRet is cost-savings retention; both are 100% at the ideal corner. LC =Haiku 4.5 and HC =Opus 4.7. Compact pre /Compact suf use the handoff-from/handoff-to model to summarize. Raw + disclosure retains the full trajectory and appends one model-change notice at the first HC call. Best Pass/QRec among handoff strategies and best Cost/Steps/CSRet among all non-baseline methods are in bold .
Direction
Comparison
Claude
GPT
First
Second
Δ Pass
95% CI
Δ Pass
95% CI
Escalation
Traj-drop
Raw
+3.1
[+1.3,+5.0]
+12.2
[+9.2,+15.4]
Traj-drop
Compact pre
+0.6
[−1.1,+2.3]
+10.9
[+7.5,+14.5]
Traj-drop
Compact suf
+2.8
[+1.0,+4.6]
+10.9
[+7.7,+14.2]
Compact pre
Raw
+2.5
[+0.9,+4.2]
+1.3
[−1.7,+4.3]
Compact suf
Raw
+0.4
[−1.2,+1.9]
+1.3
[−1.4,+4.0]
Appendix
Table 8: Pairwise interface pass-rate differences by model family. Δ Pass is the first strategy minus the second, in percentage points. Within each direction, rows present the central Traj-drop–Raw reversal, broader Traj-drop–compaction comparisons, and secondary comparisons among context-preserving interfaces, in that order. Intervals are pointwise 95% task-clustered bootstrap confidence intervals from 10,000 resamples.
Task
Policy
Early
Middle
Late
Score
Cost
QRec
CSRet
Score
Cost
QRec
CSRet
Score
Cost
QRec
CSRet
($)
(%)
(%)
($)
(%)
(%)
($)
(%)
(%)
Code
LC-only
65.0
0.033
0
100
65.0
0.033
0
100
65.0
0.033
0
100
HC-only
92.0
0.163
100
0
92.0
0.163
100
0
92.0
0.163
100
0
Escalation
88.0
0.145
85
14
89.0
0.133
89
23
80.0
0.065
56
75
Downshift
75.0
0.047
37
89
85.0
0.082
74
62
85.0
0.156
74
5
Appendix
Table 9: Raw handoff by switch position in sharded, underspecified conversations, Claude pair. Early, middle, and late are structural switch positions. Later escalation retains more savings, while quality is mostly stable unless prior turns accumulate deliverable state. Later downshift generally improves quality while retaining less savings. Score is pass rate except for Data-to-text, which reports BLEU ×100 .
Task
Policy
Early
Middle
Late
Score
Cost
QRec
CSRet
Score
Cost
QRec
CSRet
Score
Cost
QRec
CSRet
($)
(%)
(%)
($)
(%)
(%)
($)
(%)
(%)
Code
LC-only
85.0
0.017
0
100
85.0
0.017
0
100
85.0
0.017
0
100
HC-only
95.0
0.057
100
0
95.0
0.057
100
0
95.0
0.057
100
0
Escalation
96.0
0.052
110
13
94.0
0.037
90
49
94.0
0.024
90
82
Downshift
90.0
0.024
50
82
94.0
0.037
90
50
96.0
0.052
110
13
Appendix
Table 10: Raw handoff by switch position in sharded, underspecified conversations, GPT pair. Early, middle, and late are structural switch positions. Later escalation retains more savings, while quality is mostly stable unless prior turns accumulate deliverable state. Later downshift generally improves quality while retaining less savings. Score is pass rate except for Data-to-text, which reports BLEU ×100 .
Prefix model
Difficulty
N
Switch step by prefix-run percentile
p5
p10
p15
p25
p35
p45
p50
Haiku 4.5
Easy
194
25
30
34
37
42
46
50
Medium
261
35
41
45
51
58
63
66
Hard
45
48
54
58
63
77
86
94
Opus 4.7
Easy
194
5
7
8
10
12
14
14
Medium
261
8
12
13
16
18
21
23
Appendix
Table 11: Difficulty-calibrated switch steps by prefix model. Steps are agent turns, corresponding to model API calls. Each threshold is the specified percentile of the prefix model’s single-model termination-step distribution within the given difficulty bucket.
Agents with smaller language-model backbones are less expensive but can drift into persistent failure modes, whereas those with larger backbones are generally more reliable but more costly. This reliability-cost trade-off motivates routing methods that decide when to invoke an agent with a larger backbone: before execution, after a fixed trajectory prefix, or locally at individual steps. Our method, TACIT-SWITCH, learns permanent handoff policies from accumulated trajectory evidence and Teacher-Annotated Censored Intervention Times (TACIT). It represents each annotation as an interval-censored observation on a cumulative-risk scale. The resulting mixture-cure threshold model estimates the probability that the paired Strong rollout succeeds and, conditional on success, the handoff threshold; no teacher is required at deployment. In a mechanism-based multi-step simulation, TACIT-SWITCH improves success by 7.4-11.1 percentage points over task-level, step-level, and fixed-prefix routing baselines at comparable cost. Within that controlled simulation, ablations show that task features and cumulative trajectory risk provide complementary information. With operating points selected on development data, TACIT-SWITCH achieves the highest held-out success among learned policies on both ALFWorld (48.5% with 4B Cheap; 45.5% with 9B Cheap) and DABench (73.1%).
Ji'an Lei, Jian Huang
School of Statistics Beijing Normal University Beijing 100875, China · Department of Applied Mathematics The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China
Recent work on multi-agent LLM systems reaches sharply different conclusions: some results show that a single agent with the same information and compute should dominate a delegated system, others that multi-agent gains grow with task depth. We argue that much of the disagreement comes from modelling different bottlenecks, and introduce a stylised reliability model built around two trade-offs. Decomposition reduces the burden of long contexts but incurs a handoff tax when information is compressed or transferred between agents. Redundancy gains from multiple samples, but its benefit depends on how much their failures are shared. With reasoning budget, verification, and task structure added, the model yields two crossover conditions: decomposition becomes preferable once the attention cost avoided by resetting context exceeds the handoff cost, and parallel sampling at equal budget is eventually preferable when its shared-failure floor lies below the error floor of one agent thinking longer. We connect these regimes to recent theoretical and empirical results. On a ledger-reconciliation task we measure the context-degradation curve and the handoff tax from single-agent and handoff runs alone. From these the model places the crossover at depth 10 and predicts decomposition to win at depths 20, 50, and 100. It does, on step-level and final-balance accuracy, and the decomposed system's success, which the prediction never sees, lands within 9 percentage points of the predicted rate at every depth.
Akshit Anchan, Nayonika Sen
University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, The Netherlands · Northeastern University Boston, MA, United States of America
Model routing can reduce the cost of LLM applications by assigning simpler requests to cheaper models without sacrificing the quality of the response. However, most routers treat requests as independent. Stateful agents do not operate under this assumption: a user turn may require multiple model and tool calls, its difficulty depends on the state produced by earlier turns, and changing models can sacrifice reuse of the conversational prompt cache. We study zero-shot, cost-aware routing at the user-turn boundary, systematically varying the routing rule, access to session history, candidate models that differ in size, reasoning effort, or model provider, and prompt-cache behavior. We evaluate on multi-turn versions of SheetCopilot and SpreadsheetBench 2, where persistent workbooks and cross-turn dependencies make isolated routing decisions especially brittle. At a matched offloading rate, giving the router session history improves task pass rate over the same router without history, with gains for every model pair; history-aware routing remains within one point of always using the expensive model. We also found that cost depends on execution dynamics rather than token prices alone: the cheaper model's per-task cost advantage narrows from 6.8x to 3.2x on longer sessions. A closed form cache analysis further shows that downward switches (expensive to cheap) recover their cache cost within two LLM calls, whereas upward switches do not break even under the evaluated conditions. Together, these results show that agent routing is a sequential decision problem: effective policies must account for what happened earlier in the session and for the asymmetric cost of switching models.