Skip to content
Preprint

Doomed from the Start: Early Abort of LLM Agent Episodes via a Recall-Controlled Probe Cascade

Jul 2026 · 1 citation · 63 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The proposed LLM agent early-stopping cascade outperforms the best single-gate baseline in every model-environment pair, saving 1.5-8.8 times more compute at a 90% recall target.

Abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents often waste inference compute by continuing multi-step trajectories that are already doomed to fail. We study early failure prediction and inference-time early stopping for LLM agents using hidden-state probes. Lightweight linear probes on internal activations predict eventual task failure from the first interaction round, substantially earlier than agent-monitoring methods based only on observable behavior. We turn this signal into a recall-controlled abort cascade for reducing LLM agent inference costs. The cascade applies a distribution-free calibrated failure detector at each early interaction round and jointly optimizes per-round recall budgets. This design ensures that eventually successful episodes survive all early-stopping gates at a user-specified global recall rate. After selection, the cascade is frozen and certified on independent data, providing an exact post-selection recall guarantee. We evaluate the method on TextCraft and WebShop with Qwen-2.5-7B, Llama-3.2-3B, and Qwen3-1.7B. The proposed LLM agent early-stopping cascade outperforms the best single-gate baseline in every model-environment pair, saving 1.5-8.8 times more compute at a 90% recall target. Achieved recall remains within one standard deviation of its target in all 24 configurations. The strongest settings reduce generated tokens by 60.2% on TextCraft and 54.9% on WebShop at 90% recall, while retaining savings of 45.0% and 41.5% at 95% recall. Behavior-only monitoring is consistently weaker, and adding behavioral features to hidden-state probes provides no further gain. We also characterize the sample complexity required to certify high-recall early-stopping policies. The code will be released soon.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Fail-Fast, Restart-Smart: Early Failure Prediction and Restart for SWE Agentic Tasks

FailFast-RestartSmart, a two-stage controller for a single active trajectory that supports early termination with sequential same-policy recovery, and results support early termination with sequential same-policy recovery.

Chenyu Wang, Yunbo Lyu, Junda He et al. · 1 citation
#artificial intelligence Review Aug 2026

What is Missing from AI Post-Training AI: An Empirical Analysis

Analyzing a large corpus of publicly released post-training trajectories, it is found that across different tasks, the agent's training strategy is locked in at the very beginning, and the entire remaining budget is spent on local adjustments within the selected strategy.

J. Lim, Xin Huang, Hao Peng et al. · 2 citations · ⚡1
Preprint Aug 2026

The Replay Gap: Static Evaluation of Model Switching in LLM Agents Scores the Wrong World

This work forks live SWE-bench agent trajectories at controlled points, rebuild the environment, continue each fork with a different model, and compare against same-model control forks that isolate sampling and replay noise, finding configuration-dependent temperature-0"determinism" is configuration-dependent.

Ashritha Gonuguntla · 8 citations · ⚡2
Preprint Jul 2026

AgentTether: Graph-Guided Diagnosis and Runtime Intervention for Reliable LLM Agent Operation

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used for multi-step, stateful tool-use tasks, yet production reliability remains limited. Unlike static software repair, agent repair must recover dynamic trajectories whose early decisions can propagate into later errors and external state changes. Existing automatic...

Chenyu Zhao, Shenglin Zhang, Wenwei Gu et al. · 2 citations
Jul 2026

Why Are GUI Agents Correct but Late? Decode on the Decision-Time Critical Path, Tested with Pre-Compiled Policy Trees

Results suggest that AAPT performs best when candidate actions can be enumerated in advance, whereas reactive execution remains stronger when they cannot, and on an external benchmark, AAPT matches the overall performance of a reactive baseline, although the two methods exhibit complementary strengths.

Zi-Han Dong, Rui Qian, Ruifang Qian et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.