Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2611.09028

Scout Before You Route: Predicting Task Success and Token Count from a Small LLM Prefill

Abstract

Routers typically choose a model per query by trading predicted correctness against cost. Most price each model at a fixed cost, as if every query used the same number of output tokens, but the output length of reasoning models varies by an order of magnitude across queries. When is per-query cost worth predicting? What factors drive cost? How cheaply can predictions be made? We predict both the success probability and the output length of candidate models from the prefill activations of a single small frozen LLM, the scout. With reasoning candidates, perfect per-query cost knowledge would save 29-61% of spending on eight of nine datasets, and much less with non-reasoning candidates on the same problems. On those eight datasets, our predicted costs save 9-33% at matched accuracy relative to median-length pricing, up to 69% of what perfect knowledge would save. They are significantly cheaper than each estimator we reimplemented or adapted from published work, including ZeroRouter and a MixLLM-style predictor, on a majority of datasets. Output length depends mostly on the problem. On most math and code datasets, harder problems are longer, so predicted success alone prices cost nearly as well. On knowledge and mixed-format datasets they are not, and predicted success falls well behind a probe trained on length. The probe keeps most of its saving with 20 labelled problems and transfers without labels to four of seven new benchmarks. On a mixture of all nine benchmarks, it saves 22% beyond pricing each benchmark at its own median length. Savings stop growing at about a 2B scout, so above 4B a larger scout costs more than it adds.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aristides Milios, Christopher Pal. 2026-11-06. Scout Before You Route: Predicting Task Success and Token Count from a Small LLM Prefill. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09028

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Limit Analysis for Symbolic Multi-step Reasoning Tasks with Information Propagation Rules Based on Transformers

Transformers are able to perform reasoning tasks, however the intrinsic mechanism remains widely open. In this paper we propose a set of information propagation rules based on Transformers and utilize symbolic reasoning tasks to theoretically analyze the limit reasoning steps. We show that the limit number of reasoning steps is between $2^{L-1}-1$ and $\frac{3^{L-1}-1}{2}$ for a model with $L$ attention layers in a single-pass. In addition, we find that, for problems with a fixed number of reasoning steps, Transformers exhibit a preference for generating sequences that satisfy certain ordering relations. Ultimately, we construct a Transformer and prove that the limiting reasoning depth is achievable.

cs.AI↗

Counterfactual Distillation: Internalizing Reflective Experience into LLM Agent

Large language models increasingly act as autonomous agents in long-horizon interactions, learning from final outcomes and environmental feedback. However, optimizing from such interaction experience remains challenging, as feedback is heterogeneous and rarely carries explicit reward information. Existing post-training approaches rely on outcome-driven methods, such as reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), which primarily exploit final success signals while leaving interaction experience and feedback underutilized. In sparse-reward, long-horizon tasks, this often results in distribution sharpening: the policy reinforces a narrow set of already-successful behaviors, without substantially improving the feedback-grounded agency needed for broader problem-solving capacity (e.g., Pass@k). We propose Counterfactual Distillation, a framework that converts exploration-derived experience into trainable policy supervision. Specifically, we organize exploration as a tree-structured search process, where the agent reflects on past decision points and makes new experience-guided decisions to form alternative branches. These corrections are then distilled as counterfactual targets: we train the model to predict the revised action from the original history without explicitly providing the experience, thereby introducing out-of-distribution behavior patterns and expanding exploration capacity. Across diverse interactive coding and agentic tasks, our method outperforms outcome-driven baselines such as GRPO and experience-based methods such as Early Experience, with gains of up to 14 percentage points over the base model on Pass@128. When interleaved with reinforcement learning updates, it further raises the performance ceiling, improving Pass@1 on Sokoban by 8 percentage points over extended GRPO. Our code is available at https://github.com/motigrez/Counterfactual-Distillation.

cs.AI↗

Taming the Centaur(s) with LAPITHS: a framework for a theoretically grounded interpretation of AI performances

We introduce a framework called LAPITHS (Language model Analysis through Paradigm grounded Interpretations of Theses about Human likenesS) and use it to show that several major claims advanced by models such as CENTAUR, proposed as an artificial Unified Model of Cognition, are not theoretically or empirically justified. LAPITHS provides a principled reference point for counteracting the current behaviouristic tendency in AI research to interpret the human level performances of transformer based language models as evidence of human like underlying computation and, by extension, as signs of cognitive abilities. The novelty of LAPITHS lies in making explicit the arguments grounded in two quantitative assessments: (i) the Minimal Cognitive Grid, a theoretically motivated method for estimating the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, and (ii) a behavioural comparison showing that results similar to those reported for CENTAUR like models can be reproduced by other systems that do not satisfy the structural constraints typically associated with cognitive plausibility, and whose outputs do not provide independent explanatory insight into human cognition.

cs.AI↗