arXiv preprint ·
Context Is a Pipeline, Not a Window: Information Attrition in LLM Agent Harnesses
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
LLM agents are judged by two numbers: the size of the context window, and how often the final answer is correct. Both numbers miss a third thing: how much of a tool's output is lost before the model ever sees it. We measured this loss in a real tool-using agent. The agent finds the cause of injected faults by reading Linux kernel traces. The context window was almost empty: across 720 runs, the single largest prompt used only 5.75% of it. Yet a third of all tool results (3,827 of 11,189) were cut before they reached the model, and every cut result became broken JSON. The harness cut each result by slicing its JSON text at a fixed length. This does not shorten a result evenly. It deletes whatever data sits near the end. One field reached the model in only 4.7% of calls. A second field, in the very same results, reached the model in 99.3% of calls. Which field held the fault's evidence depended on when the faulty process started: early or late in the trace. The agent's diagnosis accuracy matched this same split. So we ran controlled experiments to test one question: did the data loss cause the drop in accuracy? This paper makes four contributions. First, we model an agent's context as a five-stage pipeline, with a measured failure at each stage. Second, we replay 864 real tool results, including one from a production trace where the shipped cut deletes all 128 records of the fault's evidence. Third, a controlled experiment shows that the cut's real cost appears first as extra work, not as wrong answers: 43% more tool calls, twice the computation, and yield falling from 0.61 to 0.31. The agent still finds the right answer when it has another way to reach it. Fourth, a survey of seven agent frameworks finds two that cut tool output the same unsafe way. Whether the data cut truly causes the accuracy drop is still an open question.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Thinking-in-Bets at Test Time Reduces Sycophantic Revisions in LLM Agents
ProCerDCL: Query-Efficient Black-Box Probabilistic Verification of Deep Learning Compiler Optimization
The Physical Cost of Context: Quality-Constrained Resource Accounting for Coding Agents
From Ripple to Boundary: Deterministic Impact Boundaries for LLM-Based Software Evolution
Arya Forge: Auditing Validation and Release Approval for Financial Instruction Data
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.