Long-horizon multimodal agents rely on specialized capabilities for perception, retrieval, reasoning, verification, and execution. Existing designs typically activate a fixed capability set or invoke a predefined workflow, incurring substantial computational overhead while failing to accommodate stage-dependent capability demands. In this paper, we study the combinatorial capability allocation problem for long-horizon multimodal agent systems, where the system selects a cost-sensitive subset of specialized capabilities at each interaction stage, which is nontrivial since capability values depend on the selected subset, while previous allocations alter the states encountered by subsequent decisions. We introduce CoCA, an on-policy learning framework that recovers a deployable capability-subset policy from sparse conditional comparisons. On states visited by the student policy, the stronger teacher compares the marginal net values of candidate capabilities, conditioned on the currently selected subset. Then, we adopt a conditional utility model to transform such comparisons into an autoregressive capability-subset policy, avoiding explicit enumeration. We further introduce dual-level on-policy distillation to address distribution mismatch both across environment states and within the partial subsets encountered during set construction. Finally, trajectory-level reinforcement learning refines the distilled policy toward task success, activation cost, and allocation stability. At inference time, allocation is performed solely by the lightweight student policy without teacher queries or online updates. Experiments on long-horizon multimodal environments and controlled capability-demand shifts demonstrate the superiority of our method over the state-of-the-art baseline methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of the proposed CoCA framework. The diagram illustrates the learning pipeline from conditional preference modeling and teacher-guided policy construction to dual-level distillation and trajectory-level optimization.
Models
Baselines
Multi-Agent
Adaptive Control
OSWorld
VisualWebArena
GAIA
MMMU-Pro
Succ. ↑
Cost ↓
Succ. ↑
Cost ↓
Acc. ↑
Cost ↓
Acc. ↑
Cost ↓
Qwen3.6-27B
ReAct
✘
✔
17.2
0.90
13.6
0.88
33.1
0.86
43.2
0.83
Toolformer
✘
✘
20.8
0.83
15.1
0.81
39.4
0.75
44.1
0.85
Puppeteer
✔
✘
24.9
0.72
19.0
0.73
38.7
0.70
47.6
0.71
AutoTool
✘
✘
26.3
0.64
22.4
0.59
44.0
0.62
46.9
0.66
NaviAgent
✘
✔
31.7
0.55
23.1
0.51
46.2
0.53
52.3
0.57
Table 1: The overall evaluation results of CoCA and other baseline methods on four benchmark datasets. The best-performing method is marked by bold .
Methods
OSWorld
VisualWebArena
GAIA
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
ReAct
3.38
0.52
0.53
0.48
0.09
3.21
0.46
0.49
0.47
0.07
2.71
0.54
0.55
0.50
0.15
Toolformer
3.11
0.55
0.58
0.55
0.21
2.79
0.54
0.54
0.51
0.18
2.40
0.58
0.61
0.56
0.22
Puppeteer
2.43
0.62
0.61
0.59
0.29
2.36
0.57
0.62
0.60
0.30
1.88
0.65
0.64
0.62
0.38
AutoTool
2.17
0.64
0.69
0.66
0.42
1.98
0.63
0.65
0.61
0.35
1.69
0.66
0.72
0.69
0.44
NaviAgent
1.71
0.72
0.73
0.70
0.50
1.72
0.68
0.71
0.69
0.49
1.31
0.74
0.76
0.73
0.55
Table 2: Evaluation of allocation quality under Kimi-K2.6. The best-performing method is marked by bold .
Methods
OSWorld
GAIA
Succ. ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
Acc. ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
w/o Set-Dep
39.6
0.97
0.79
0.77
0.75
0.66
56.4
0.74
0.82
0.80
0.78
0.69
w/o Set-On Policy
41.2
0.91
0.84
0.78
0.76
0.68
58.1
0.69
0.86
0.81
0.79
0.71
w/o Stage-On Policy
38.4
0.95
0.81
0.82
0.80
0.67
55.7
0.72
0.84
0.85
0.83
0.70
w/o Traj. RL
40.1
1.58
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.69
57.3
1.19
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.72
w/o Null-Anchor
41.5
0.89
0.83
0.74
0.78
0.58
58.6
0.67
0.85
0.76
0.80
0.61
Table 3: Ablation study on the OSWorld and GAIA benchmarks under Kimi-K2.6.
Figure 2: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on OSWorld and GAIA benchmarks under Kimi-K2.6.
Methods
Avg. Latency
LLM Calls
Token Cost (k)
Avg. Act. /stage
Train Cost
ReAct
62.4
14.8
41.2
6.7
0.0
Toolformer
55.1
12.3
35.7
5.9
1.2
Puppeteer
47.8
10.6
31.4
5.1
0.0
AutoTool
43.2
9.4
28.9
4.6
3.5
NaviAgent
38.5
8.1
24.3
3.8
5.8
CoCA (Ours)
31.7
6.5
18.6
2.9
7.4
Table 4: Efficiency on GAIA benchmark under Kimi-K2.6.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Methods
OSWorld
VisualWebArena
GAIA
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
ReAct
3.52
0.49
0.50
0.46
0.08
3.35
0.43
0.46
0.45
0.06
2.85
0.51
0.52
0.48
0.13
Toolformer
3.24
0.52
0.55
0.52
0.19
2.95
0.51
0.51
0.49
0.16
2.53
0.55
0.58
0.53
0.20
Puppeteer
2.55
0.59
0.58
0.56
0.27
2.47
0.54
0.59
0.57
0.28
1.98
0.62
0.61
0.59
0.35
AutoTool
2.31
0.61
0.66
0.63
0.39
2.12
0.60
0.62
0.59
0.33
1.78
0.63
0.69
0.66
0.41
NaviAgent
1.89
0.68
0.69
0.66
0.46
1.88
0.64
0.67
0.65
0.45
1.42
0.70
0.72
0.69
0.51
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation of allocation quality under Qwen3.6-27B. The best-performing method is marked by bold .
Methods
VisualWebArena
MMMU-Pro
Succ. ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
Acc. ↑
SwC ↓
DSA ↑
PPA ↑
TAR ↑
UGC ↑
w/o Set-Dep
31.5
0.96
0.75
0.74
0.71
0.63
58.7
0.93
0.84
0.76
0.78
0.64
w/o Set-On Policy
33.2
0.90
0.80
0.77
0.74
0.65
60.1
0.86
0.87
0.81
0.82
0.69
w/o Stage-On Policy
32.4
0.93
0.78
0.80
0.77
0.65
61.0
0.90
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.70
w/o Traj. RL
33.1
1.49
0.83
0.82
0.80
0.68
61.6
1.31
0.89
0.86
0.84
0.72
w/o Null-Anchor
33.9
0.87
0.79
0.72
0.75
0.57
59.5
0.85
0.86
0.74
0.79
0.58
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study on the VisualWebArena and MMMU-Pro benchmarks under Kimi-K2.6.
The Key Laboratory of Cognition and Decision Intelligence for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China