When does a scaling result justify a different allocation? A critical review of resource-allocation evidence for AI systems

We present AgentSLABench, a resource-aware evaluation framework for autonomous AI agents that measures correctness alongside latency, cost, compute, memory, and network usage under declared resource budgets. Unlike standard benchmarks that report only accuracy, AgentSLABench produces a multi-dimensional profile per agent per task - the same way systems profilers (perf, pprof, cProfile) measure resource consumption of code, but extended with task correctness as a first-class dimension. AgentSLABench provides 16 task environments across 6 categories (5 core: multi-hop QA, retail substitution, code generation, web shopping, travel planning; 11 extended) with isolated Docker containers, declared CPU/memory/time/network budgets, sealed test sets with SHA256 hashes, and a standardized profiling protocol. We profile 5 general-purpose baseline agents (ReAct, PlanAndSolve, Reflexion, CoT, Random) plus 4 task-specialized agents, finding that specialized agents achieve 100% success on 3/5 core tasks (fact_qa, web_shopping, travel_planning) and 66.7-83.3% on retail and code_gen, while general baselines fail entirely on 4/5 domain tasks. Crucially, we report the Efficiency-Adjusted Success Rate (EASR) - success weighted by resource consumption relative to declared budgets - revealing that high accuracy at unbounded cost is not production-viable. We release the full infrastructure, sealed test sets, and profiling results to enable reproducible, resource-aware agent evaluation.

Predicting model performance at larger scales enables the design of training strategies and architectures tailored to specific performance targets. Empirical scaling law research identifies functional forms to aid this prediction task. These describe the relationship between loss and compute using a loss-compute frontier defined by learning curves. Due to the empirical nature of this approach, the computational burden is substantial, making strategic resource allocation essential - yet it remains surprisingly underexplored. In this work, we address this shortcoming by exploring the suitability of Successive Halving (SH) and SH combined with parametric and non-parametric surrogate models. In addition to enabling a more systematic allocation of a given compute budget, our findings show that SH paired with surrogate models yields a set of learning curves that includes one with a lower loss-compute value than what naive uniform allocation or an SH-only approach can obtain. Our experiments demonstrate mean relative improvements of up to 2.84% and 5.47% on real-world and synthetic learning curve datasets. This strategic resource allocation enables us to obtain accurate scaling laws at significantly reduced computational costs, saving up to 98.7% over the traditional exhaustive approach.

Scaling laws for optimization against reward models in AI alignment have pinned down how performance depends on optimization effort---measured by a KL-divergence budget relative to a reference policy. Beyond a certain budget, over-optimization (or reward hacking) can arise: because we optimize against a proxy reward model (distinct from true rewards), performance can plateau or degrade. Naturally, the proxy reward's accuracy depends on how much preference data (often in the form of pairwise comparisons) was used to train it. However, existing research does not cleanly identify how performance jointly scales with the amount of training data and the divergence budget. Our main contribution is to provide an empirically accurate and theoretically grounded scaling law in such context. Performance roughly scales as $Θ(\sqrt{\min\{\log(M),K\}})$, where $M$ is the number of comparisons in training data and $K$ is the policy's divergence budget. We develop an information-theoretic model to establish this upper bound and prove it is tightly achievable through a constructive procedure. Informed by this, we conduct extensive empirical evaluations using a real-world annotation setup, whereby a large 70B gold reward model generates feedback data and proxy reward models are trained from less capable models (0.6B to 4B). Our scaling law provides an excellent fit (R2 from 97% to 99%), outperforms alternative specifications, and remains robust across model sizes, noise, and optimization procedures (best-of-$N$ or policy tilting). Our evidence suggests that reward optimization is analogous to a surprisingly simple selection task: choosing from a sequence of IID Gaussian random variables using noisy preference feedback.