arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.34763

The Physical Cost of Context: Quality-Constrained Resource Accounting for Coding Agents

Abstract

Coding agents resend a growing context on every model call, and context policies are usually judged by the prompt tokens they save. Executed work also depends on call count and prefix reuse: a caching runtime prefills only the tokens after the longest cached prefix. A shorter prompt can therefore cost more if it rewrites cached history. Our quality-gated protocol splits executed prefill into logical prompt minus reused prefix and measures KV residency, time, and energy. On 450 localization cases derived from SWE-rebench V2, preloading ten retrieved blocks (Eager) and adding anchored history compaction (Compact) both pass a five-point non-inferiority gate. In a separate 900-cell study, Eager cuts model calls by 35.7% and the GPU-energy proxy by 33.2% against on-demand search (Grep); Compact saves nothing further. Enabling prefix caching leaves Eager's prompt volume similar (+8.3%; its 95% CI spans zero) but cuts its uncached prefill by 67.7%. Deleting history can turn a token saving into extra work. With mini-SWE-agent on 100 SWE-bench Verified instances, keeping only the last five observations (Mask-5) cuts Eager's prompt volume by 33.3% but loses 135.9k reusable tokens per task. Uncached prefill rises by 608.5%, the energy proxy by 125.6%, and the policy misses the quality gate. Policies thus save physical work by shortening the trajectory and can multiply it by editing reusable history.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zhongming Yu, Yitong Ma, Hengjia Yu, Boqin Yuan, Xiangye Lin, Hejia Zhang, Jishen Zhao. 2026-10-26. The Physical Cost of Context: Quality-Constrained Resource Accounting for Coding Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.34763

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

How Quickly Do Development Teams Update Their Vulnerable Dependencies?

Industry practitioners are increasingly concerned with software that contains vulnerable versions of third-party dependencies that are included both directly and transitively. To address this problem, projects are encouraged to both (a)~quickly update to non-vulnerable versions of dependencies and (b)~be mindful of the update practices of the dependencies they choose to use. To this end, researchers have proposed metrics to measure the responsiveness of the development teams of the packages in keeping their dependencies updated: Mean-Time-To-Update (MTTU) and Mean-Time-To-Remediate (MTTR). While MTTU covers all dependencies, MTTR quantifies the time needed for a package to update its vulnerable dependencies. However, existing metrics fail to capture important nuances, such as considering floating versions and prioritizing recent updates, leading to inaccurate reflections of a development team's update practices. \textit{The goal of this study is to aid practitioners in understanding how quickly packages update their dependencies.} We propose two novel metrics, Mean-Time-To-Update for dependencies (MTTU) and Mean-Time-To-Remediate for vulnerable dependencies (MTTR), that overcome the limitations of existing metrics. We conduct an empirical study using $163,207$ packages in npm ($117,129$), PyPI ($42,777$), and Cargo ($3,301$) and characterize how the ecosystems differ in MTTU and MTTR, as well as what package characteristics influence MTTU and MTTR. We found that most packages have a relatively fast dependency update practice. We further study whether MTTU can be used as a proxy for MTTR when sufficient vulnerability data is not available. As we did not find enough statistical evidence for a strong proxy, our findings suggest that MTTU could only be partially used (may be used but with caution) as a proxy for MTTR when vulnerability data is not available.

cs.SE↗

Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review

Code review is a critical software engineering practice where developers review code changes before integration to ensure code quality, detect defects, and improve maintainability. In recent years, AI agents that can understand code context, plan review actions, and interact with development environments have been increasingly integrated into the code review process. However, there is limited empirical evidence to compare the effectiveness of AI agents and human reviewers in collaborative workflows. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of 278,790 code review conversations across 300 open-source GitHub projects. In our study, we aim to compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents. We investigate human-AI collaboration patterns in review conversations to understand how interaction shapes review outcomes. Moreover, we analyze the adoption of code suggestions provided by human reviewers and AI agents into the codebase and how adopted suggestions change code quality. We find that human reviewers provide additional feedback than AI agents, including understanding, testing, and knowledge transfer. Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code. Moreover, code suggestions made by AI agents are adopted into the codebase at a significantly lower rate than suggestions proposed by human reviewers. Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers. When adopted, suggestions provided by AI agents produce significantly larger increases in code complexity and code size than suggestions provided by human reviewers. Our findings suggest that while AI agents can scale defect screening, human oversight remains critical for ensuring suggestion quality and providing contextual feedback that AI agents lack.

cs.SE↗

Firefly: Illuminating Large-Scale Verified Tool-Call Data Generation from Real APIs

Training tool-calling agents requires large-scale trajectory data with verifiable labels, yet existing approaches either synthesize environments that diverge from real API behavior or generate tasks without ground-truth outcomes for verification. We present FireFly, a pipeline for generating verified tool-call data from real-world MCP servers. Our key insight is to invert the standard synthesis pipeline: rather than generating tasks and hoping they are solvable, we first let a strong LLM explore real APIs along graph-guided DAG structures, then synthesize tasks backward from observed outcomes, guaranteeing label correctness by construction. To handle the scale of real-world tool spaces (${\sim}$1,000 tools), we build a pairwise tool graph and sample sub-DAGs to focus exploration on semantically coherent workflows. To address environment drift in live APIs, we construct a retrieval-augmented simulator that caches all exploration results and replays them during training and evaluation, enabling fully offline and reproducible RL. Applying this pipeline yields 5,144 verified tasks spanning 240 servers and 993 tools. A 4B-parameter model trained with GRPO on FireFly matches Claude Sonnet 4.6 on our held-out test set and shows improvements on multiple tool-calling benchmarks including Tau2-Bench, MCPMark, and MCP-Atlas.

cs.SE↗