aiqbench analysis
This study challenges the assumption that memory and skill modules automatically enhance web agents, revealing that their token overhead often negates performance gains when compared against a budget-matched baseline. The research highlights that apparent improvements in aggregate success rates frequently vanish under strict inference cost constraints, urging the community to prioritize run-to-run variance reporting alongside standard metrics. Ultimately, the findings suggest that vanilla models utilizing additional inference steps may outperform augmented architectures in cost-sensitive enterprise scenarios.
Are Online Skill and Memory Modules Always Worth Their Tokens? A Budget-Constrained Study of Web Agents
arXiv:2606.15017v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Online web agents often augment a base actor with memory, workflow, or skill modules. These modules can improve performance, but they also consume test-time tokens, a cost rarely reported alongside the actor's inference cost. We study online augmentation, where this overhead is paid on every task, and re-evaluate its benefits under a fixed total inference budget. We compare AWM, ASI, and ReasoningBank with a token-matched vanilla baseline that uses the same budget for additional actor steps. Across four WebArena domains and three models, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5.4-mini, and Qwen 3.6-27B, the vanilla baseline matches or surpasses all three augmentation methods in aggregate success rate while often using fewer total tokens. We observe a similar trend on WorkArena-L1 with Qwen 3.6-27B, indicating that the effect extends to enterprise knowledge-work tasks. Our results suggest that skills and workflow memory can be useful in specific domains, but their apparent gains often vanish against a budget-matched actor. We further show that run-to-run variance materially affects outcomes and should be reported as a core evaluation criterion for online web agents.
Title:Are Online Skill and Memory Modules Always Worth Their Tokens? A Budget-Constrained Study of Web Agents
Abstract:Online web agents often augment a base actor with memory, workflow, or skill modules. These modules can improve performance, but they also consume test-time tokens, a cost rarely reported alongside the actor's inference cost. We study online augmentation, where this overhead is paid on every task, and re-evaluate its benefits under a fixed total inference budget. We compare AWM, ASI, and ReasoningBank with a token-matched vanilla baseline that uses the same budget for additional actor steps. Across four WebArena domains and three models, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5.4-mini, and Qwen 3.6-27B, the vanilla baseline matches or surpasses all three augmentation methods in aggregate success rate while often using fewer total tokens. We observe a similar trend on WorkArena-L1 with Qwen 3.6-27B, indicating that the effect extends to enterprise knowledge-work tasks. Our results suggest that skills and workflow memory can be useful in specific domains, but their apparent gains often vanish against a budget-matched actor. We further show that run-to-run variance materially affects outcomes and should be reported as a core evaluation criterion for online web agents.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2606.15017 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2606.15017v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.15017 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 284 words
Related coverage
Are Online Skill and Memory Modules Always Worth Their Tokens? A Budget-Constrained Study of Web Agents
arXiv · Jun 17, 2026

NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX: Live Updates on What’s Next in AI
NVIDIA · May 21, 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026