aiqbench analysis
This paper identifies "turn count" rather than observation size as the dominant factor in coding agent costs, revealing that current caching strategies significantly understate actual expenses. The authors introduce TurnCost, a tool for re-scoring trajectories to better evaluate model delegation and loop efficiency beyond simple token compression. By shifting focus from compressing observations to optimizing iterative loops, this work offers a critical framework for reducing the operational overhead of AI coding agents.
TurnCost: Turns, Not Observations: Cache-Aware Loop Engineering for Coding Agents
arXiv:2610.15093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents operate in iterative loops: they modify code, run tools, inspect the results, and decide what to do next. We call the design of this process loop engineering, which includes context management, model selection, compaction, and termination. Existing efficiency work mainly compresses tool observations or routes selected turns to cheaper models, but the practical opportunity for these optimizations remains unclear. We analyze 600 publicly released coding-agent trajectories spanning two agent scaffolds and two language models. Median observations contain only 118-286 tokens, while the large build logs commonly used to motivate compression occur near the ninety-ninth percentile. Moreover, 98.6% of input tokens are served from a prefix cache, so flat input pricing overestimates loop cost by roughly 7x on average under near-ideal caching. We derive and empirically validate a closed-form break-even condition for model delegation. Delegation increases cost in half of the evaluated settings, near the predicted boundary. More broadly, turn count explains 84% of the variance in log trajectory cost, compared with 4% for mean observation size; the most expensive trajectories have the most turns despite having the smallest observations. These associations suggest that observation-focused methods target a secondary cost factor, and identify unnecessary turns as the larger and largely unexamined opportunity, though we do not establish that turns can be removed while holding task success fixed. We release TurnCost, a tool for re-scoring trajectory corpora under alternative caching, pricing, compression, and routing policies.
Abstract:AI coding agents operate in iterative loops: they modify code, run tools, inspect the results, and decide what to do next. We call the design of this process loop engineering, which includes context management, model selection, compaction, and termination. Existing efficiency work mainly compresses tool observations or routes selected turns to cheaper models, but the practical opportunity for these optimizations remains unclear. We analyze 600 publicly released coding-agent trajectories spanning two agent scaffolds and two language models. Median observations contain only 118-286 tokens, while the large build logs commonly used to motivate compression occur near the ninety-ninth percentile. Moreover, 98.6% of input tokens are served from a prefix cache, so flat input pricing overestimates loop cost by roughly 7x on average under near-ideal caching. We derive and empirically validate a closed-form break-even condition for model delegation. Delegation increases cost in half of the evaluated settings, near the predicted boundary. More broadly, turn count explains 84% of the variance in log trajectory cost, compared with 4% for mean observation size; the most expensive trajectories have the most turns despite having the smallest observations. These associations suggest that observation-focused methods target a secondary cost factor, and identify unnecessary turns as the larger and largely unexamined opportunity, though we do not establish that turns can be removed while holding task success fixed. We release TurnCost, a tool for re-scoring trajectory corpora under alternative caching, pricing, compression, and routing policies.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
D.2.8; I.2.2; I.2.11
arXiv:2610.15093 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2610.15093v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15093 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.1145/3843779.3844635 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
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 · 352 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026
[AINews] OpenAI DevDay 2026: Dots, 6.1 Sol, Ultrafast, Decisions API, Agents API, Spaces, Marketplace, and 1.2 Billion ChatGPT WAU
Latent Space · Sep 30, 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · Oct 17, 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026