跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail
正在查看已观测的 v1。查看最新 v2 →

arXiv:2611.12125 · v1

CARE-PO: Controllable Tool-Call Efficiency for LLM Agents

首次提交 2026-11-09 17:41
版本更新 2026-11-09 17:41
雷达观测 2026-11-10 15:22
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

External tool calls are a major running cost of an LLM agent, while its training objectives align almost exclusively with task completion. In a step-level diagnosis of Qwen3.5 trajectories at two model sizes on GAIA, a long-horizon tool-use benchmark, we find that most contain removable calls, at a similar rate at both sizes. Some methods add an efficiency reward to the objective to reduce the call count, but introduce problems of their own: the anchor they price calls against is computed from the policy's own rollouts (e.g., the group's shortest correct rollout) and so moves with the policy; training can drift toward a collapsed policy that issues no tool call at all, a degeneracy seen in published reports and in our 27B baseline; and a training run delivers a single operating point, so the user cannot trade efficiency against capability. We present CARE-PO (Controllable Anchored Relative Efficiency Policy Optimization) to mitigate these problems. The efficiency reward prices calls against a reference budget anchored to the task's own difficulty and fixed before training. Injecting a successful trajectory from the training data into each online GRPO rollout group and charging for evidence a trajectory never gathers ease the drift toward a collapsed call count. Shaping the cost curve by an effort tag in the prompt yields an efficiency and a capability operating point from a single training run. On GAIA, five of the six operating points across three model sizes improve on their base model in success rate and call count at once. On four held-out multi-hop benchmarks the result is size-dependent: at 27B and 4B success rate is held or raised at a lower call count, while at 9B both operating points trade success rate for fewer calls. The call count remains well above zero throughout training at all three sizes.

作者备注:Under review at ICLR 2027

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

仅对比实际观测的元数据,不代表 PDF 正文或实验变化。版本可能不连续;带删除线为移除,下划线为新增。

这两个版本的已观测标题、作者、分类、摘要和备注没有变化。正文是否变化请核对原文。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-12 12:22 · 最新观测版本

CARE-PO: Controllable Tool-Call Efficiency for LLM Agents

External tool calls are a major running cost of an LLM agent, while its training objectives align almost exclusively with task completion. In a step-level diagnosis of Qwen3.5 trajectories at two model sizes on GAIA, a long-horizon tool-use benchmark, we find that most contain removable calls, at a similar rate at both sizes. Some methods add an efficiency reward to the objective to reduce the call count, but introduce problems of their own: the anchor they price calls against is computed from the policy's own rollouts (e.g., the group's shortest correct rollout) and so moves with the policy; training can drift toward a collapsed policy that issues no tool call at all, a degeneracy seen in published reports and in our 27B baseline; and a training run delivers a single operating point, so the user cannot trade efficiency against capability. We present CARE-PO (Controllable Anchored Relative Efficiency Policy Optimization) to mitigate these problems. The efficiency reward prices calls against a reference budget anchored to the task's own difficulty and fixed before training. Injecting a successful trajectory from the training data into each online GRPO rollout group and charging for evidence a trajectory never gathers ease the drift toward a collapsed call count. Shaping the cost curve by an effort tag in the prompt yields an efficiency and a capability operating point from a single training run. On GAIA, five of the six operating points across three model sizes improve on their base model in success rate and call count at once. On four held-out multi-hop benchmarks the result is size-dependent: at 27B and 4B success rate is held or raised at a lower call count, while at 9B both operating points trade success rate for fewer calls. The call count remains well above zero throughout training at all three sizes.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗
v1 · 2026-11-09 17:41

CARE-PO: Controllable Tool-Call Efficiency for LLM Agents

External tool calls are a major running cost of an LLM agent, while its training objectives align almost exclusively with task completion. In a step-level diagnosis of Qwen3.5 trajectories at two model sizes on GAIA, a long-horizon tool-use benchmark, we find that most contain removable calls, at a similar rate at both sizes. Some methods add an efficiency reward to the objective to reduce the call count, but introduce problems of their own: the anchor they price calls against is computed from the policy's own rollouts (e.g., the group's shortest correct rollout) and so moves with the policy; training can drift toward a collapsed policy that issues no tool call at all, a degeneracy seen in published reports and in our 27B baseline; and a training run delivers a single operating point, so the user cannot trade efficiency against capability. We present CARE-PO (Controllable Anchored Relative Efficiency Policy Optimization) to mitigate these problems. The efficiency reward prices calls against a reference budget anchored to the task's own difficulty and fixed before training. Injecting a successful trajectory from the training data into each online GRPO rollout group and charging for evidence a trajectory never gathers ease the drift toward a collapsed call count. Shaping the cost curve by an effort tag in the prompt yields an efficiency and a capability operating point from a single training run. On GAIA, five of the six operating points across three model sizes improve on their base model in success rate and call count at once. On four held-out multi-hop benchmarks the result is size-dependent: at 27B and 4B success rate is held or raised at a lower call count, while at 9B both operating points trade success rate for fewer calls. The call count remains well above zero throughout training at all three sizes.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗