LazyAgent runs only the agent steps a request actually needs, saving 51.7 percent of container time and 24 percent of dollars in a live application
AspireAI community · arXiv (cs.AI)
Agent runtimes that plan before acting execute every step the moment it is ready, which makes no distinction between a step that is ready and a step the request needs. LazyAgent formalises demand-driven execution for agent runtimes: run a ready step only if the current request needs it, keeping the answer exact as the plan changes. A demanded set derived from the program decides in one traversal with no model calls, and because demand is defined exactly the behaviour can be proved. Measured against an eager runtime, it saves 51.7 and 52.1 percent of container time on release gates where a frontier LLM writes the patches, 12.8 percent of tokens on DataSciBench plans at matched quality, and 24.0 percent of dollars inside a live LangGraph application, with no losses. On 303 requests across 154 production workflows the eager runtime spends 62.2 percent of its CPU on work the request never needed, and LazyAgent saves 42.0 percent of CPU there while adding at most 0.43 percent overhead. It is a demand-driven execution layer rather than a model improvement, and the savings depend on plans whose steps are individually addressable.
Read the story and explore more from the AspireAI community.
Two sparse-autoencoder analyses have resisted scaling: matching semantically similar features across layers, and compressing large feature circuits into interpretable supernodes. This paper argues both are the same underlying problem, estimating semantic distances between SAE features that sit on different activation manifolds. Its representation treats each feature not as a single decoder vector but as an activation-weighted distribution over the hidden states expressing it, projects those distributions into a shared reference space, and compares them with Wasserstein distance. The representation is proved invariant to activation rescaling and stable under perturbation, and recovers true matches under finite-sample margin conditions. Empirically it outperformed decoder-vector and LLM-based baselines and captured subtle functional distinctions between related features, and it compressed large feature circuits into interpretable supernodes automatically. The limitation is that this is interpretability tooling: the paper demonstrates better feature matching and circuit compression, not that downstream interpretability claims become more accurate.