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
Authors:

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 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.

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.