The latency with respect to the resource dynamics of processing multiple requests and tasks concurrently is characterized and new optimization opportunities that exploit the resource dynamics of tasks are demonstrated: CPU-aware tool admission and task-aware CPU allocation.
Abstract
LLM-based AI agents process user requests through iterative reasoning and tool execution, often involving the invocation of remote LLM APIs with local tool containers. This execution model can make the optimization of agent serving difficult because latency, local resource demand, and container bottlenecks inter-mix across requests. However, the current agent ecosystem runs without much consideration of resource dynamics, which results in significant waste of the precious resources. This paper analyzes the resource inter-mix of AI agents for three representative tasks: retrieval-augmented question answering, web search, and software coding. To this end, we characterize the latency with respect to the resource dynamics of processing multiple requests and tasks concurrently. Our measurements show that agents have a wide range of behaviors depending on tasks, so that even the same tool can differ substantially in resource dynamics. We also find that running multiple requests concurrently exposes task-dependent bottlenecks in resource dynamics such as CPU, disk I/O, and memory. Furthermore, we uncover that faster LLM responses or more CPU cores do not always accelerate agents. Based on these observations, we demonstrate new optimization opportunities that exploit the resource dynamics of tasks: CPU-aware tool admission and task-aware CPU allocation. Our results show that the latency of CPU-sensitive agent tasks improves $\sim$5.4$\times$, and the average latency across multiple tasks is reduced $\sim$32% compared to native agents.
LLM-based agents execute multi-turn workflows with interleaved model inference and tool calls, making efficient serving increasingly important. However, evaluating serving optimizations is challenging because identical tasks can produce different execution trajectories. Changes in generated tokens can alter subsequent...
Zai-Feng Pan, Michael Wang, Chris Wu et al.· 0 citations
Autonomous AI agents increasingly select actions in environments whose memory, execution-time, runtime, compute, and operational constraints determine what counts as a suitable plan. We call the absence of this execution context from an agent's planning state substrate blindness. We test this general proposition throug...
This work presents AgentSysBench, a benchmark suite and measurement toolkit with ten representative agentic applications and unified systems-level instrumentation, and identifies six properties that distinguish agentic workloads from conventional LLM serving.
Chaokun Chang, Yu-Kun Zhou, Kai-Hua Fu et al.· 8 citations
An explainable agentic AI framework for multi-cloud task allocation built on a contextual-bandit agent that observes each provider's current price, estimated latency, and load before autonomously selecting a placement, then updates its policy online from the resulting cost, latency, and service-level-agreement (SLA) ou...
Dr. Sajitha A V· International Journal of Int...· 0 citations
The strong performance of AI Agents across an impressive variety of tasks is driving an unprecedented investment in agentic infrastructures, however the cost of processing tokens is fast increasing. Web agents automate the execution of web-application tasks described in natural language, by analyzing the web-applicatio...
With $2.1 million funding from Google.org, the open-source Public Transit Intelligence Hub will unify public transit monitoring, operations, and passenger communication.
Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.