Cost-Accuracy Frontiers for LLM Agents Are Estimated, Not Observed

Cost-accuracy Pareto frontiers have become the standard way to compare large language model agents, displacing scalar accuracy. The plot has been adopted; the statistics have not. A published frontier is a point estimate of a random set, yet it is drawn and read as though observed, with no interval, no membership probability, and typically a single rollout per task. We formalize frontier reporting as an estimation problem and give an estimator: a bootstrap over the correct resampling unit, membership and dominance probabilities in place of binary flags, a Hausdorff confidence band for the frontier as a curve, and a split-sample correction for selection bias. We validate it against known ground truth across ten generative families, then on real per-task results from 135 agent submissions to SWE-bench Verified (including per-task cost for 38 models under one harness), Terminal-Bench 2.0 (58 submissions, 5 runs/task), and tau^2-Bench (26 submission-domain pairs, 4 runs/task with dollar cost). Four results stand out: (1) Uncertainty quantification changes conclusions: in simulation at five rollouts per task, 17.6% of naive "X dominates Y" claims are false, reduced to 1.3% by certification; on the real frontier, 27% of such claims are not supported at P >= 0.9. (2) The natural two-stage bootstrap over tasks and seeds double-counts within-cell variance and over-covers, with a 1/S signature identifying the cause. (3) Real task suites are clustered: on SWE-bench Verified, respecting repositories widens accuracy intervals 1.94x; task-level resampling covers only 0.654 for generalizing to new repos, while clustering whole repos achieves 0.927. On the leaderboard, only 9 of 105 adjacent rank orderings are supported at P >= 0.9. (4) Neither cost axis is universally valid: mean cost fails under heavy-tailed difficulty, while median cost carries small-seed bias. We release an open implementation that consumes (config, task, seed, success, cost) tuples from any harness.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23669068
Primary Topic
Software Engineering Research
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Cost-Accuracy Frontiers for LLM Agents Are Estimated, Not Observed

Harish Mashetty
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Software Engineering Research
preprint

Cost-Accuracy Frontiers for LLM Agents Are Estimated, Not Observed

Harish Mashetty
preprint en

Abstract

Cost-accuracy Pareto frontiers have become the standard way to compare large language model agents, displacing scalar accuracy. The plot has been adopted; the statistics have not. A published frontier is a point estimate of a random set, yet it is drawn and read as though observed, with no interval, no membership probability, and typically a single rollout per task. We formalize frontier reporting as an estimation problem and give an estimator: a bootstrap over the correct resampling unit, membership and dominance probabilities in place of binary flags, a Hausdorff confidence band for the frontier as a curve, and a split-sample correction for selection bias. We validate it against known ground truth across ten generative families, then on real per-task results from 135 agent submissions to SWE-bench Verified (including per-task cost for 38 models under one harness), Terminal-Bench 2.0 (58 submissions, 5 runs/task), and tau^2-Bench (26 submission-domain pairs, 4 runs/task with dollar cost). Four results stand out: (1) Uncertainty quantification changes conclusions: in simulation at five rollouts per task, 17.6% of naive "X dominates Y" claims are false, reduced to 1.3% by certification; on the real frontier, 27% of such claims are not supported at P >= 0.9. (2) The natural two-stage bootstrap over tasks and seeds double-counts within-cell variance and over-covers, with a 1/S signature identifying the cause. (3) Real task suites are clustered: on SWE-bench Verified, respecting repositories widens accuracy intervals 1.94x; task-level resampling covers only 0.654 for generalizing to new repos, while clustering whole repos achieves 0.927. On the leaderboard, only 9 of 105 adjacent rank orderings are supported at P >= 0.9. (4) Neither cost axis is universally valid: mean cost fails under heavy-tailed difficulty, while median cost carries small-seed bias. We release an open implementation that consumes (config, task, seed, success, cost) tuples from any harness.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Software Engineering Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon