aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a "handoff tax" in LLM agent workflows, demonstrating that switching between low-cost and high-capability models incurs significant quality degradation and unnecessary costs due to non-native trajectory continuity issues. The study reveals counterintuitive findings where reducing context during model escalation improves performance, while removing history during downshifting harms it, offering critical insights for optimizing multi-stage coding agent architectures.
The Handoff Tax: Continuing Non-Native Trajectories in LLM Agents
arXiv:2608.24358v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding agents perform long-running tasks spanning dozens of model calls, tool uses, and code edits. As these runs unfold, users face a practical cost-quality trade-off: escalating to a stronger model when a cheaper one struggles, or downshifting once the hard reasoning is complete. Each switch requires the receiver to continue a non-native trajectory produced by another model. We study how this handoff affects quality and cost, and how varying the trajectory information inherited by the receiver changes the outcome. Using pairs of low-cost, low-capability (LC) and high-cost, high-capability (HC) models from the Claude and GPT families, we vary handoff direction, timing, and interface, comparing full-trajectory transfer, compaction, and trajectory removal while preserving the repository state. Across both model families, full-trajectory escalation recovers less than half of the LC-to-HC quality gap while incurring a substantial cost premium. We term this cost-quality penalty the handoff tax. By contrast, downshift offers a favorable cost-quality point. Interestingly, the preferred interface also reverses with direction: reducing LC-model trajectory information improves escalation quality, whereas removing the HC-model trajectory reduces downshift quality.
Abstract:Coding agents perform long-running tasks spanning dozens of model calls, tool uses, and code edits. As these runs unfold, users face a practical cost-quality trade-off: escalating to a stronger model when a cheaper one struggles, or downshifting once the hard reasoning is complete. Each switch requires the receiver to continue a non-native trajectory produced by another model. We study how this handoff affects quality and cost, and how varying the trajectory information inherited by the receiver changes the outcome. Using pairs of low-cost, low-capability (LC) and high-cost, high-capability (HC) models from the Claude and GPT families, we vary handoff direction, timing, and interface, comparing full-trajectory transfer, compaction, and trajectory removal while preserving the repository state. Across both model families, full-trajectory escalation recovers less than half of the LC-to-HC quality gap while incurring a substantial cost premium. We term this cost-quality penalty the handoff tax. By contrast, downshift offers a favorable cost-quality point. Interestingly, the preferred interface also reverses with direction: reducing LC-model trajectory information improves escalation quality, whereas removing the HC-model trajectory reduces downshift quality.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.24358 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.24358v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.24358 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 269 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

AI alone won’t change your business. The system running it will.
Microsoft · Jun 2, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026