Multi-turn agent trajectories often contain redundant rounds (failed tool calls, parallel sub-queries, verification-only steps) that inflate both training and inference cost. We propose viewing each trajectory as a \emph{round-level dependency DAG} that exposes which rounds are globally load-bearing for the final answer, and fine-tune agents on trajectories refined through this DAG. Given an LLM-annotated DAG, these edits are deterministic and interpretable, with optional rephrasing. Models trained on these refined trajectories consistently outperform those trained on the original trajectories at lower inference cost. Specifically, across four multi-modal QA benchmarks, our refinements improve downstream accuracy by up to 1.7,pp over vanilla SFT (and 5.7,pp over an LLM-deletion baseline) while reducing per-sample inference messages by up to approximately 40% and inference tokens by up to approximately 48%, translating to substantial savings in compute and serving cost. Code is available.
Multi-agent tool calling is becoming the dominant interaction pattern for LLM-based systems, yet existing inference frameworks treat each tool call as an independent request, re-processing the entire conversation from scratch even though 85-95% of the prompt is unchanged from the previous turn. We present a stateful inference architecture that converts the O(nt) per-turn cost of conventional serving into an O(Δt) delta-only cost: a persistent KV cache lives across turns and advances by ingesting only the new tokens, while a radix prefix cache extends this across interleaved multi-agent traffic and a prompt-lookup speculative decoder accelerates structured output. Against vLLM and SGLang on novel, fully-generated workloads, the reference implementation is 2.1× faster per turn on a 6-turn agentic workflow and 4.2× on the median turn of a 35-turn one, halving end-to-end wall time. The advantage comes from stateful reuse and speculation, not caching.
Multi-trajectory inference for tool-use LLM agents - generating multiple reasoning attempts and selecting among them - benefits from transferring knowledge across attempts so that later ones avoid the pitfalls of earlier ones. Existing cross-trajectory memory methods (trajectory-level reflection, atomic fact extraction, raw observation injection) are each evaluated under a single inference strategy on a single task, making it unclear whether reported gains reflect properties of the memory abstraction or of the inference method. We propose a unified framework that decomposes memory along two axes -- the scope of transfer (within an expansion vs. across trajectories) and the abstraction of the transferred content -- and evaluate four methods under three inference strategies (best-of-N, beam search, MCTS) on four tool-use benchmarks spanning SQL, knowledge-graph, and CLI environments, in a verifier-free setting that matches the deployment regime of practical agents. The experiment matrix identifies the inference method as a confound: the same memory method produces statistically distinct results under different inference strategies on the same examples. Reflection reaches significance only under MCTS (not under best-of-N); within-expansion injection (conditioning each candidate on prior siblings' outcomes) helps only diversity-starved beam search; and atomic fact extraction is accuracy-neutral but shortens trajectories by 19-26% on tasks with reusable environmental structure.
Multi-turn user-facing agents must infer user intent from incomplete requests, collect missing information through dialogue and tools, and execute valid actions. A training trajectory records this process as an interleaved sequence of user messages, agent responses, tool calls, etc. Synthesizing sufficiently complex trajectory has become a central route to train agents: existing pipelines often increase difficulty by composing multiple user requests into longer tasks, producing write-intensive trajectories that train sequential execution. We argue that a single write decision can itself be difficult when the agent must gather and compare substantial read-tool evidence before its arguments become identifiable, a challenge that write-intensive data alone cannot address. Guided by this insight, we propose WRIT (\uline{W}rite-\uline{R}ead \uline{I}ntensive \uline{T}rajectory Synthesis), a pipeline for synthesizing multi-turn agent training trajectories along two complexity axes: the number of write decisions in a task and the evidence burden of each individual decision. WRIT first generates write-intensive and read-heavy tasks. It then diversifies user behavior instructions to reflect realistic conversational variation, and finally simulates agent-user interactions in an executable environment to produce complete training trajectories. The resulting data trains agents not only for longer task execution, but also for robust, evidence-grounded decision making under high information load. With only 2K synthesized trajectories, a 4B model trained on WRIT outperforms GPT-5.1 no-think on τ2-bench and substantially reduces inference-time token usage, showing that compact SFT data can convert part of expensive test-time reasoning into efficient agent behavior.