CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Jun 04, 2026

Not All Errors Are Equal: Consequence-Aware Reasoning Compute Allocation

arXiv AI Archived Jun 04, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2606.04402v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern reasoning models can allocate different amounts of test-time computation, such as thinking tokens, model calls, or compute budget, to different tasks. Existing methods generally drive this allocation by predicted difficulty and spend more compute where it is expected to raise accuracy. This implicitly assumes that all failures cost the same, since an accuracy objective weights every task equally. However, such an assumption does not hold in

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 3 Jun 2026] Not All Errors Are Equal: Consequence-Aware Reasoning Compute Allocation Jingbo Wen, Liang He, Ziqi He Modern reasoning models can allocate different amounts of test-time computation, such as thinking tokens, model calls, or compute budget, to different tasks. Existing methods generally drive this allocation by predicted difficulty and spend more compute where it is expected to raise accuracy. This implicitly assumes that all failures cost the same, since an accuracy objective weights every task equally. However, such an assumption does not hold in deployment: A typo in a log message and a migration that corrupts a production database both count as one benchmark failure, but their real-world costs are fundamentally different. To fill this gap, we propose consequence-aware test-time compute allocation. Instead of routing compute only by predicted difficulty, we use a lightweight predictor to estimate from the issue text how costly a task would be if solved incorrectly. The scheduler then routes higher-consequence tasks to larger compute tiers or higher thinking budgets under the same total budget. We conduct main experiments on SWE-bench Lite and evaluate cross-dataset behavior on Multi-SWE-bench mini, covering 700 software-engineering tasks in total. Our results reveal that consequence and difficulty are approximately orthogonal under various annotations, and that current thinking models do not allocate compute sufficiently according to consequence. Moreover, our issue-only predictor never misclassifies a high-consequence task as low-consequence across the 300 SWE-bench tasks. Under matched compute budgets, our consequence-aware scheduler reduces cost-weighted loss by 22% to 33% relative to difficulty-aware routing; in particular, the priority-aware variant, which routes by per-task cost scaled by the marginal-utility signal, crosses 30%, and its deployable predictor-driven version retains over 90% of the oracle gain. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2606.04402 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2606.04402v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.04402 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Liang He [view email] [v1] Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:29:57 UTC (199 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-06 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Jun 04, 2026
    Archived
    Jun 04, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗