Huimin Zeng, Yuxuan Lu, Jesse Cai, Eric Hanchen Jiang, Di Wu, Po-Nien Kung, Wenbo Hu, Ziyi Wang 等 11 位作者
AI agents may consume massive tokens across a wide range of tasks, but how many of those tokens are really necessary? Although prior work has shown that agents can incur unexpectedly high token costs, we still lack a systematic way to identify and measure token waste. In this work, we introduce a unified framework for measuring token waste across heterogeneous agent systems. Our framework records and normalizes complete agent trajectories, identifies removable spans using an LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaJ), and maps the identified text spans back to the original trajectory for token-level measurement. We validate the identified waste through direct interventions by removing marked spans, resuming agent execution, and measuring changes in task outcomes and subsequent actions. In online pruning experiments, we remove 41-46% of the model's reasoning while largely preserving task performance across two distinct agent benchmarks. Using this framework, we analyze agents across multiple settings. Our analysis shows that token waste has a system-level structure that aggregate token usage alone cannot reveal. First, waste varies more across tasks and agent settings than across models. Second, reasoning and visible execution can exhibit different waste patterns. Third, different harnesses can introduce distinct sources of inefficiency even under the same model and task. Overall, our framework transforms token waste into an actionable optimization signal, enabling researchers and practitioners to train more efficient models, design better reasoning strategies, and optimize agent harnesses toward reducing unnecessary computation rather than merely reducing token usage.
Shu Yang, Shenzhe Zhu, Hao Zhu, José Ramón Enríquez, Di Wang, Alex Pentland, Michiel A. Bakker, Jiaxin Pei
Large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed as assistants in planning and decision making, yet most existing systems are implicitly optimized for a single-principal interaction paradigm, in which the model is designed to satisfy the objectives of one dominant user whose instructions are treated as the sole source of authority and utility. However, as they are integrated into team workflows and organizational tools, they are increasingly required to serve multiple users simultaneously, each with distinct roles, preferences, and authority levels, leading to multi-user, multi-principal settings with unavoidable conflicts, information asymmetry, and privacy constraints. In this work, we present the first systematic study of multi-user LLM agents. We begin by formalizing multi-user interaction with LLM agents as a multi-principal decision problem, where a single agent must account for multiple users with potentially conflicting interests and associated challenges. We then introduce a unified multi-user interaction protocol and design three targeted stress-testing scenarios to evaluate current LLMs' capabilities in instruction following, privacy preservation, and coordination. Our results reveal systematic gaps: frontier LLMs frequently fail to maintain stable prioritization under conflicting user objectives, exhibit increasing privacy violations over multi-turn interactions, and suffer from efficiency bottlenecks when coordination requires iterative information gathering.