ChromaFlow: A Negative Ablation Study of Orchestration Overhead in Tool-Augmented Agent Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14102v2
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 23:56:06 GMT
• Title: ChromaFlow: A Negative Ablation Study of Orchestration Overhead in Tool-Augmented Agent Evaluation
• Abstract summary: This report presents a tool-augmented autonomous reasoning framework built around planner-directed execution, specialized tool use, and telemetry-driven evaluation.<n>We analyze ChromaFlow on GAIA 2023 Level-1 validation tasks under clean evaluation constraints.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Autonomous language-model agents increasingly combine planning, tool use, document processing, browsing, code execution, and verification loops. These capabilities make agent systems more useful, but they also introduce operational failure modes that are not visible from final accuracy alone. This report presents ChromaFlow, a tool-augmented autonomous reasoning framework built around planner-directed execution, specialized tool use, and telemetry-driven evaluation. We analyze ChromaFlow on GAIA 2023 Level-1 validation tasks under clean evaluation constraints. A frozen full Level-1 baseline achieved 29/53 correct answers, or 54.72%. A later recovery configuration with expanded orchestration achieved 27/53 correct answers, or 50.94%, while increasing tracebacks, timeout events, tool-failure mentions, token-log calls, and campaign-log cost estimates. Two randomized 20-task smoke evaluations produced 12/20 and 11/20 correct answers, showing that small diagnostic gains can be unstable across samples. The central result is therefore a negative ablation: more aggressive orchestration did not improve full-set performance and increased operational noise. A later strict-provider full-Level-1 diagnostic reached 30/53, or 56.60%, under explicit integrity controls, but at substantially higher token-log cost. The report argues that bounded planner escalation, deterministic extraction, evidence reconciliation, provider-health gates, and explicit run gates should be treated as first-order requirements for reliable autonomous agent evaluation.

Related papers

• TRACE: Training Reasoning Agents for Causal Exploration with Synthesized Rewards [15.908097225313968]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has advanced language-model reasoning in domains such as mathematics and code.<n>We ask whether this asymmetry of verification can be engineered.<n>We instantiate this approach in TRACE, a digital-advertising diagnostic environment with 12 root causes and fine-grained segment attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T15:21:47Z)
• Agentic AI-based Framework for Mitigating Premature Diagnostic Handoff and Silent Hallucination in Healthcare Applications [17.69274632062373]
  Open-ended conversational agents remain prone to two critical failure modes: premature diagnostic handoff and silent clinical hallucinations.<n>We propose a multi-agent framework that addresses both issues by replacing LLM-as-a-judge'' routing with deterministic orchestration constraints.<n>We evaluate the system using simulated patient agents powered by the llama-3.1-70b-instruct model on 150 test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T15:39:19Z)
• Offloading Score: Measuring AI Reliance Through Counterfactual Workflows [70.84727355516559]
  We introduce offloading score, a measure of reliance that quantifies the fraction of cognitive effort offloaded to an AI tool.<n>We validate offloading score through intrinsic evaluations of metric validity, and a controlled user study.<n>We show that offloading score detects significantly higher reliance in time-constrained settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T05:44:31Z)
• Beyond the Black Box: Interpretability of Agentic AI Tool Use [0.0]
  We introduce a mechanistic-interpretability toolkit built on Sparse Autoencoders and linear probes.<n>The framework reads model states before each action and infers both whether a tool is needed and how consequential the next tool action is likely to be.<n>We train the probes on multi-step trajectories from the NVIDIA Nemotron function-calling dataset and apply the same workflow to GPT-OSS 20B and Gemma 3 27B models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T19:47:30Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• SAAG: Structured Agent Assessment and Grounding [13.62148061055744]
  We propose a cascaded diagnostic framework that decomposes agent-calling evaluation into three sequential stages.<n>We evaluate this framework on a benchmark derived from Glaive's function-calling dataset across registry sizes of 5, 10, and 15 agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T19:33:58Z)
• Reinforced Agent: Inference-Time Feedback for Tool-Calling Agents [6.158612515104146]
  We introduce Helpfulness-Harmfulness metrics to measure the tradeoff between agent feedback and reviewer feedback.<n>We evaluate our approach on BFCL and Tau2-Bench (multi-turn stateful scenarios), achieving +5.5% on irrelevance detection and +7.1% on multi-turn tasks.<n>Our metrics reveal that reviewer model choice is critical: the reasoning model o3-mini achieves a 3:1 benefit-to-risk ratio versus 2.1:1 for GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T22:09:47Z)
• TRAJEVAL: Decomposing Code Agent Trajectories for Fine-Grained Diagnosis [23.834704102474927]
  Code agents can resolve GitHub issues, yet when they fail, current evaluation provides no visibility into where or why.<n>We introduce TRAJEVAL, a diagnostic framework that decomposes agent trajectories into three interpretable stages.<n>We validate that these diagnostics are predictive, achieving model-level Pass@1 prediction within 0.87-2.1% MAE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T05:27:03Z)
• Dynamic analysis enhances issue resolution [53.50448142467294]
  DAIRA (Dynamic Analysis-enhanced Issue Resolution Agent) is an automated repair framework that embeds dynamic analysis into the agent's reasoning cycle.<n> Driven by a Test Tracing-Driven methodology, DAIRA utilizes lightweight monitors to extract critical runtime data.<n>When powered by Gemini 3 Flash Preview, DAIRA establishes a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, achieving a 79.4% resolution rate on the SWE-bench Verified dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T14:48:54Z)
• AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents [50.481033105867205]
  We introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories.<n>The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement.<n>It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T16:13:58Z)
• The Bitter Lesson of Diffusion Language Models for Agentic Workflows: A Comprehensive Reality Check [54.08619694620588]
  We present a comprehensive evaluation of dLLMs across two distinct agentic paradigms: Embodied Agents and Tool-Calling Agents.<n>Our results on Agentboard and BFCL reveal a "bitter lesson": current dLLMs fail to serve as reliable agentic backbones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T11:45:39Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.