To balance task performance and computational cost, agentic workflows can use a lower-cost model for execution and selectively consult a stronger model. In such executor-advisor systems, the executor decides when to seek advice, making escalation depend on self-assessment, although current language models struggle to detect where their own reasoning fails. The need for stronger reasoning emerges during execution and varies across workflow phases. We introduce ARIA, a meta-controller that learns when to consult by balancing task success against consultation cost. Our approach formulates consultation as a sequential resource-allocation problem. At workflow contact points, ARIA maps execution evidence to a compact state abstraction and selects SILENT or CONSULT, with action values learned by Monte Carlo control from cost-penalized outcomes. Across evaluated tasks of SWE-bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.1, and τ2-bench, ARIA recovers 44-81% of the executor-advisor success gap at less than half the advisor model's cost. ARIA achieves the best observed success-cost trade-off among ten other evaluated conditions, including routing and cascading methods, fixed and prompted consultation, and random placement at matched advice volume. The policies are compact and inspectable, with a single consultation-price parameter governing the success-cost trade-off without retraining either underlying model.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: ARIA setup. At each contact point, the meta controller chooses between Silent and Consult . Consultation adds guidance from a stronger advisor to the shared context.
Figure 2: Success-cost operating points on SWE-bench for ARIA policies with λ∈{0.1,0.35,0.5} , consultation-budget ablations, and reference conditions.
Figure 3: Primary failure mode across baselines and benchmarks grouped into system-design, inter-agent misalignment, and verification failures, showing different residual failure profiles.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
cˉ
Δ
κ
SWE-bench
0.0490
0.1663
0.029465
Terminal-Bench
0.0683
0.2816
0.024254
τ2 -bench
0.0244
0.1281
0.019048
Appendix
Table 5: Benchmark-specific cost calibration for the headline policies at λ=0.10 . The quantities cˉ and Δ are in USD; κ=λcˉ/Δ is the per-consultation penalty in reward units.
SWE-bench
Terminal-Bench
τ2 -bench
Controller seeds
3
3
3
Training episodes
∼ 150
162
160
Training tasks
∼ 50
27
20
Approx. passes
3
6
8
Discount γ
1
1
1
MC update
α=1/N(s,a)
Appendix
Table 6: Controller-training budgets and shared hyperparameters. Evaluation uses a frozen greedy policy without exploration.
Benchmark
Development source
Train tasks
Train episodes
Held-out test
SWE-bench
screened benchmark training pool
50-52
150-156
50 (Verified-Mini)
Terminal-Bench
39-task development partition
27
162
50 (test)
τ2 -bench
official telecom train split
20
160
40 (telecom test)
Appendix
Table 7: Development and evaluation splits used for policy learning and final evaluation. Train–test overlap was verified from task identifiers rather than assumed from split names.
Method
Allocation rule
Budget
Executor-only
no advisor
–
Advisor-only
advisor executes
–
FrugalGPT
score-based cascade
–
RouteLLM
pre-task routing
–
AutoMix
verify then escalate
–
Plan
first contact
B=1
Appendix
Table 8: Baseline contracts. B denotes the maximum number of within-trajectory advisor consultations per episode and therefore applies only to consultation-based conditions.
SWE-bench
Terminal-Bench
τ2 -bench
ARIA consults/episode
2.780
2.460
3.042
Consultation probability p
0.49
0.62
0.172
Random consults/episode
2.527
2.417
2.670
Random / ARIA volume
90.9%
98.2%
87.8%
Appendix
Table 9: Calibration and realized consultation volume of the Random placement control relative to the headline ARIA policy ( λ=0.10 ).
Model
Input
Cached input
Output
Reasoning
Tier threshold
Above threshold
gemini-3-flash-preview
0.50
0.05
3.00
3.00
none
none
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
2.00
0.20
12.00
12.00
200,000 prompt tokens
in 2.00 / cached 0.20 / out 6.00
Appendix
Table 10: Pricing used for the reported evaluation costs, in USD per million tokens. The final column reports the incremental surcharge applied above the listed context threshold. Thus, for gemini-3.1-pro-preview , the effective rates above 200K prompt tokens are 4.00forfreshinput,0.40 for cached input, and $18.00 for output and reasoning tokens.
Benchmark
Condition
Ep.
Calls
Input
Cached
Output
Reason.
Total
Cached %
Cost/run
SWE-bench Verified
Executor-only
150
2,440
36.825
12.397
4.251
0.880
54.354
25.2
11.48
SWE-bench Verified
Advisor-only
150
3,367
28.609
43.244
2.164
2.886
76.903
60.2
45.90
SWE-bench Verified
FrugalGPT
196
3,470
43.958
21.112
4.850
1.675
71.596
32.5
22.61
SWE-bench Verified
RouteLLM
150
2,734
29.913
21.392
3.524
1.924
56.753
41.7
25.03
SWE-bench Verified
AutoMix
257
4,945
66.469
66.846
5.954
3.133
144.438
50.1
59.68
SWE-bench Verified
Plan
150
2,736
31.402
9.571
3.782
0.435
45.190
23.4
10.90
Appendix
Table 11: Token usage and realized model cost for all headline evaluation conditions. Token columns are totals across three evaluation seeds in millions of tokens. “Input” denotes fresh input excluding cached prompt tokens; “Cached %” is the cached share of total prompt tokens. “Cost/run” is the mean realized cost across the three evaluation seeds, corresponding to Table 2. For cascades, the episode column counts billed component executions rather than unique benchmark tasks.
SWE-bench Verified
Terminal-Bench 2.1
τ2 -bench Telecom
Condition
Succ. (%)
Cost ($)
Succ. (%)
Cost ($)
Succ. (%)
Cost ($)
Executor-only
18.0±4.0
11.48±2.30
21.3±3.1
9.76±1.90
72.5±4.3
5.07±0.04
Advisor-only
62.0±7.2
45.90±5.30
51.3±1.2
60.99±5.05
98.3±2.9
22.50±1.22
FrugalGPT
31.3±2.3
22.61±1.44
22.0±4.0
11.10±2.89
78.3±2.9
7.02±0.40
RouteLLM
30.0±5.3
25.03±2.35
28.0±3.5
21.66±0.85
88.3±3.8
9.61±0.12
AutoMix
52.0±3.5
59.68±5.75
22.0±2.0
16.51±4.21
97.5±2.5
24.98±0.64
Appendix
Table 12: Task success and realized model cost across three evaluation seeds. Entries report mean ± sample standard deviation ( n=3 ).
Figure 4: Task success and consultation frequency for ARIA , Heuristic , and Random across all three benchmarks.
Figure 5: Training dynamics across three benchmarks and three controller seeds. Top: per-episode consultation rates (faint points) and smoothed trajectories (solid lines). Bottom: cumulative changes in the greedy tabular policy. Dotted vertical lines mark the last observed greedy-policy change for each seed, not a certified convergence point.
Figure 6: Learned action values for SWE-bench Verified across three independently trained controller seeds. Left: compact numerical tables reporting state visit counts and action values, where QS=Q(s,\textscSilent) and QC=Q(s,\textscConsult) . State notation is phase/evidence/prior consultation : F/E/R/D denote Frame , Explore , Reason , and Deliver ; N/C/X denote None , Clean , and Error . Structurally unreachable states are omitted, while reachable states with N=0 are retained. Right: the corresponding learned value tables for the three seeds visualized as heatmaps. Deployment selects the action with the larger value within each state; ties resolve to Silent .
Figure 7: Learned action values for Terminal-Bench 2.1 across three independently trained controller seeds. Left: compact numerical tables reporting state visit counts and action values, where QS=Q(s,\textscSilent) and QC=Q(s,\textscConsult) . State notation is phase/evidence/prior consultation : F/E/R/D denote Frame , Explore , Reason , and Deliver ; N/C/X denote None , Clean , and Error . Structurally unreachable states are omitted, while reachable states with N=0 are retained. Right: the corresponding learned value tables for the three seeds visualized as heatmaps. Deployment selects the action with the larger value within each state; ties resolve to Silent .
Figure 8: Learned action values for τ2 -bench Telecom across three independently trained controller seeds. Left: compact numerical tables reporting state visit counts and action values, where QS=Q(s,\textscSilent) and QC=Q(s,\textscConsult) . State notation is phase/evidence/prior consultation : F/E/R/D denote Frame , Explore , Reason , and Deliver ; N/O/F denote None , OK , and Failed . Structurally unreachable states are omitted, while reachable states with N=0 are retained. Right: the corresponding learned value tables for the three seeds visualized as heatmaps. Deployment selects the action with the larger value within each state; ties resolve to Silent .
Position
Evidence
Prior consult
SWE
TB
τ2
All
Frame
None
No
0/3
2/3
2/3
4/9
Explore
None
No
1/3
0/3
1/3
2/9
None
Yes
0/3
1/3
0/3
1/9
Clean/OK
No
2/3
1/3
2/3
5/9
Clean/OK
Yes
2/3
0/3
1/3
3/9
Error/Fail
No
1/3
1/3
–
2/9
Appendix
Table 13: Cross-seed agreement of the learned greedy consultation policies. Entries report the number of seeds whose frozen table selects Consult in a given state. A dash indicates that the state was never visited during training for that benchmark. For τ2 , OK and Failed correspond to the Clean and Error evidence classes used on SWE-bench and Terminal-Bench.
Figure 9: Propensity-weighted effect of Consult versus Silent within each state cell. Points show Hájek IPW estimates with 95% episode-cluster bootstrap intervals. Marker shape indicates the greedy action of the reference Q -table; circled markers use the episode-level outcome because the one-step outcome is constant or unavailable. Faded intervals include zero. Parentheses report the number of observed decisions in each cell.
Figure 10: Secondary failure modes across baselines and benchmarks grouped into system-design, inter-agent misalignment, and verification failures, showing different residual failure profiles.
Enterprise agentic systems that route every trajectory step to a frontier model waste 60-80% of their inference budget on subtasks that smaller models handle equally well. Existing routing solutions optimize single-turn query assignment but ignore a property unique to agentic workflows: subtask complexity varies widely within a single trajectory. A planning step may require frontier-class reasoning while a subsequent formatting step needs only a 7B model. We formalize step-level model routing as a sequential assignment problem over agent trajectories and propose AgentRouter, a lightweight classifier (12M parameters, <5ms overhead per step on an A100 GPU) that maps each trajectory step to one of four model tiers using five features extractable at routing time. Trained on 50,000 annotated agent trajectory steps spanning planning, coding, research, and data analysis tasks, AgentRouter achieves 72% cost reduction relative to frontier-only baselines, retaining 97.3% of frontier-only quality (less than 3% degradation in end-to-end task completion); per-step routing accuracy reaches 91% on minimal-complexity steps and 85% on efficient-tier steps, with 76-82% on the harder mid-range and frontier tiers. On the same benchmarks, RouteLLM and FrugalGPT (applied per-step) achieve only 31% and 44% cost reduction respectively, because their single-turn training signal misses trajectory-level quality dependencies.
Rudrendu Kumar Paul, Sourav Nandy
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA · University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Language-model advice can accelerate reinforcement learning, but calls are costly and returned actions may be stale or wrong. We formulate advice acquisition as a response-contingent metareasoning problem: before querying, the controller predicts possible parsed responses, evaluates the decision and declared continuation that would follow each response, and queries only when a lower confidence bound on predictive value exceeds the priced cost. Execution is governed separately by an action-specific certificate. Under explicit assumptions, certified advice is near-optimal, a wrapped learner inherits fallback regret only under intervention stability, and conservative allocation loses at most the declared query-value estimation error relative to a myopic oracle. On BabyAI, a proxy-calibrated controller with Qwen2.5-1.5B and 7B advisors improves GoToObj return over no querying by 0.029 +/- 0.016 and 0.030 +/- 0.015 across 20 seeds while reducing calls by more than 97% relative to always-query. GoToLocal is a null result. Exactly matched-call tests show an advantage over random placement only for the 1.5B advisor and no advantage over an equal-budget early schedule. Mondrian calibration improves decision-relevant empirical coverage from 0.47 to 0.85, still below the 0.90 target, while the formally covered radius is vacuous. The demonstrated benefit is therefore robust sparse advice volume on a useful task, not a proven per-state placement advantage.
Ibne Farabi Shihab, Md Najmus Swaqeeb, Abu Sa-Adat Mohamed Moon-Im Al Ahsan
Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University · Standard Chartered, Bangladesh · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BRAC University, Bangladesh
Enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language model (LLM) agents requires effective orchestration of diverse expert models and tools. However, existing frameworks typically call APIs, based on coarse-grained matching between tasks and the functions of expert models or tools, while overlooking critical factors such as performance variability and cost efficiency among functionally similar alternatives. To address this, we propose Agora, a framework that uses a confidence-calibrated auction to dynamically allocate tasks to expert models and tools. By treating reasoning steps as tradeable items, Agora bases allocation on calibrated competence rather than raw confidence. Across five main benchmarks, Agora improves or remains competitive with single-model, routing, and cascade baselines under matched candidate pools.