SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.29363

TRACER: Per-Tool Context Retention for LLM Agents via Consequence-Attributed Reinforcement Learning

Abstract

Enterprise data agents answer business queries by chaining many tool calls over multiple reasoning steps, routinely accumulating hundreds of thousands of context tokens per session. Existing compression strategies typically allocate retention budgets without accounting for the downstream consequences of removing individual tool outputs. Aggressive compression may therefore trigger costly tool re-invocations that offset the initial savings. We call this the compression--consequence gap. To close it, we propose TRACER, which formulates compression as a sequential per-tool decision problem. A lightweight REINFORCE policy assigns query-conditioned retention ratios using only information available at each compression event. Its consequence-aware objective jointly accounts for task success, total token consumption, and post-compression tool re-invocations. To improve credit assignment, TRACER uses a learned outcome model to compare the predicted consequences of the selected retention ratio with those of fully retaining each tool output. On held-out production queries across three compressor backends, TRACER reduces total token consumption by 29--46% relative to keeping all context while maintaining comparable or higher task success. Compared with a tool-type-conditional static policy, TRACER provides an additional 15--18% of token savings. Interventional rollouts show that the learned per-tool credit scores correlate with measured single-tool consequences. The learned policy also yields positive savings when transferred across agent backbones and compressor architectures, and reduces token consumption by 18--25% on five held-out LOCA-bench environments. These results demonstrate the value of consequence-aware, per-tool context retention for improving the efficiency of long-horizon language agents.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ziqi Lin, Ye Wu, Mengying Yang, Xu Liu, Yizhou Liu, Qiang Ke, Qin Guo. 2026-08-29. TRACER: Per-Tool Context Retention for LLM Agents via Consequence-Attributed Reinforcement Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29363

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

cs.HC

"An Endless Stream of AI Slop": How Developers Discuss the Burden of AI-Assisted Software Development

"AI slop", that is, low-quality AI-generated content, is increasingly affecting software development, from generated code and pull requests to documentation and bug reports. However, there is limited empirical research on how developers perceive and respond to this phenomenon. We qualitatively analyzed how developers discuss AI slop in 1,154 Reddit and Hacker News posts, developing a codebook of 15 codes organized into three thematic clusters: Review Friction (how AI slop burdens reviewers, erodes trust, and prompts countermeasures), Quality Degradation (damage to codebases, knowledge resources, and developer competence), and Forces and Consequences (systemic incentives, mandated adoption, craft erosion, and workforce disruption). Our findings frame AI slop as a tragedy of the commons, where individual productivity gains externalize costs onto reviewers, maintainers, and the broader community. We report the concerns developers raise and the mitigation strategies they propose, with implications for tool developers, team leads, and educators.

cs.SE

AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Not

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text \citep{andreDetectingAIAuthorship2023, shahDetectingUnmaskingAIGenerated2023, oparaStyloAIDistinguishingAIGenerated2024, soto2024fewshot, liLinguisticDifferencesAI2025, selviogluFeatureExtractionAnalysis2025}. But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent ``stylometric footprint'': a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human-written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that ``AI text'' is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.

cs.CL