Not All Errors Are Equal: Consequence-Aware Reasoning Compute Allocation

Abstract

Modern reasoning models can allocate different amounts of test-time computation, such as thinking tokens, model calls, or compute budget, to different tasks. Existing methods generally drive this allocation by predicted difficulty and spend more compute where it is expected to raise accuracy. This implicitly assumes that all failures cost the same, since an accuracy objective weights every task equally. However, such an assumption does not hold in deployment: A typo in a log message and a migration that corrupts a production database both count as one benchmark failure, but their real-world costs are fundamentally different. To fill this gap, we propose consequence-aware test-time compute allocation. Instead of routing compute only by predicted difficulty, we use a lightweight predictor to estimate from the issue text how costly a task would be if solved incorrectly. The scheduler then routes higher-consequence tasks to larger compute tiers or higher thinking budgets under the same total budget. We conduct main experiments on SWE-bench Lite and evaluate cross-dataset behavior on Multi-SWE-bench mini, covering 700 software-engineering tasks in total. Our results reveal that consequence and difficulty are approximately orthogonal under various annotations, and that current thinking models do not allocate compute sufficiently according to consequence. Moreover, our issue-only predictor never misclassifies a high-consequence task as low-consequence across the 300 SWE-bench tasks. Under matched compute budgets, our consequence-aware scheduler reduces cost-weighted loss by 22% to 33% relative to difficulty-aware routing; in particular, the priority-aware variant, which routes by per-task cost scaled by the marginal-utility signal, crosses 30%, and its deployable predictor-driven version retains over 90% of the oracle gain.