Papers
arxiv:2608.12123

Ready Cohorts: Bounding GPU Opportunity and Avoiding Host Round Trips in LLM-Agent Control

Published on Aug 12
· Submitted by
Josef Chen
on Aug 13

Abstract

Two studies define measurable GPU control gates for LLM-agent services by analyzing concurrent cohort scheduling and on-device routing versus host redispatch.

LLM-agent services repeatedly execute small deterministic transitions between model and tool calls: route an outcome, update state, and emit the next effect. We ask when this control path exposes enough concurrent work for GPU execution, and what changes when a GPU-computed route decision remains on device. We formalize the ready-cohort boundary using fixed-partition share F, exact offline share P*, local upper bound U, and online achieved share A. Under zero service time, unlimited capacity, and equal relative launch deadlines, a specialized dynamic program computes P* exactly. In a stationary Poisson replay of one pinned 851-session public trace panel, the primary condition at 100,000 target active sessions, K=256, and a 50 ms launch deadline gives F=30.19%, P*=43.00%, and U=45.85%. Exact packing recovers 81.83% of the opportunity lost at fixed window boundaries. The outcome-derived route key is a conditioning proxy, not proof of executable identity. A separate mechanism study keeps a GPU-computed binary decision on device instead of returning four bytes to the host and redispatching. Across four named GPU placements, the device-resident path is faster in all 36 configurations; within-placement row-median ratios range from 1.19x to 2.39x. Across both admissible mechanisms, all 14,557,440 tested batched invocations match a separately implemented host oracle. A fixed nested device graph that removes no host decision is slower in all 60 configurations across five placements. Together, the studies establish two measurable gates for GPU agent control: deadline-feasible cohort supply and observation placement. A joined finite online runtime is required to measure A, CPU displacement, and service-level benefit.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

Two studies define measurable GPU control gates for LLM-agent services by analyzing concurrent cohort scheduling and on-device routing versus host redispatch.

The host round trip between tool calls is usually the last thing I touch — the model call dwarfs it by orders of magnitude. But that's only true when the model is the bottleneck. Run a loop of small deterministic transitions and the trip starts showing up in your p50, not your p99.

The on-device route decision is the part I keep circling. It saves a trip, sure, but it moves the decision out of the host where I can log it, intercept it, or kill it when it goes sideways. I'd want the latency breakdown from a real agent loop — tool call counts, not just synthetic transitions — before I'd trade that observability away.

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2608.12123
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.12123 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 1

Spaces citing this paper 1

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.