Where Should a Stuck Agent Spend Its Next Tokens? Causal Attribution of Inference-Time Resources

Multi-agent systems promise a new axis for scaling inference: rather than having one agent think longer or sample more attempts, a task is split across many agents that work in parallel and coordinate. However, in practice, more agents can easily produce duplicate work, coordination failures, and higher costs. We therefore formulate team design as a compute allocation problem: starting from a solo agent, where should additional inference compute go to reach the reward-cost Pareto frontier? We build a minimal multi-agent harness from the ground up and trace this frontier by varying, one at a time, the workflow stage at which a lead delegates to its workers (planning, implementation, or verification), the models that form the team, and the number of workers. On ProgramBench, teams outperform solo agents but cost three to seven times as much. With the right compute allocation, however, a heterogeneous 17-agent team comes within 1.4 points of a strong homogeneous 5-agent team at 70% lower cost. This efficiency stems from three findings. First, planning is the most valuable use of workers: in a homogeneous team whose lead decides how many workers to spawn, a lead that delegates only planning to its workers, and then implements and verifies the code itself, matches the reward of a lead that delegates to workers throughout planning, implementation, and verification, at half the cost. Second, cheap models pay off as planners but not as implementers: a strong lead with cheap planners recovers 47.5% of the reward gain of an all-strong team for only 13.9% of its additional cost, whereas cheap implementers lower reward. Third, planners keep improving reward as the team grows, whereas implementers and verifiers plateau beyond four workers. Together, our results offer a guide to spending an agent budget where it counts, given the task, cost, and latency constraints a user has.

Coding agents increasingly operate in executable environments where a failed attempt produces actionable feedback rather than merely an incorrect answer. Existing cost-aware systems typically treat such failures as cascade decisions: try a cheap model first, then escalate hard cases to a stronger and more expensive model. In coding, however, execution feedback can also make further cheap-model recovery worthwhile, raising a budgeted deployment question: when should an agent spend more cheap compute, and when should it escalate? We formulate this post-failure decision as recovery routing over heterogeneous actions and train a supervised router from execution rollouts. To make the same router usable under changing budgets, we add a Conformal Risk Control (CRC) layer that selects a deployment-time cost penalty without retraining and provides marginal expected-cost control under exchangeability. Across held-out failures from five coding benchmarks, cheap recovery and escalation exhibit complementary success patterns. The calibrated frontier improves over fixed actions, prompt-only routers, and a binary cascade baseline; in the main GPT-5.4-nano/GPT-5.4 setting, one CRC-calibrated frontier point exceeds always-escalate solve rate while using 35% of its mean recovery cost. Code is available at https://github.com/Qijia-He/agent-budget-control.

Agent harnesses shape language-model performance by controlling tool use, feedback, verification, memory, and repair. Yet raw test-time expenditure, such as tokens, tool calls, wall time, or cost, cannot distinguish useful feedback from redundant or unstable interaction. We introduce Effective Feedback Compute (EFC), a trace-level scaling coordinate for informative, valid, non-redundant, and retained feedback. We further define Estimated-EFC, NRS-EFC, harness efficiency $η$, and task-demand normalization for realistic traces and heterogeneous tasks. Across synthetic, real, held-out, and prospective evaluations, EFC-based coordinates outperform raw-compute baselines and SAS. Oracle-EFC/$D_{\mathrm{task}}$ reaches $R^2=0.99$ in controlled scaling, and NRS-EFC/$D_{\mathrm{task}}$ reaches $R^2=0.93$ on real traces where raw compute has near-zero or negative fit. Finally, \ours uses EFC as a companion control layer for existing harnesses, improving mean pass rate from $61.2\%$ to $68.2\%$ while reducing mean raw cost from $213.8$ to $85.1$ under matched settings. These results suggest that harness scaling depends on durable, task-sufficient feedback rather than raw computation alone.