Detecting an Effect Is Not Learning to Act on It: A Reward-SNR Floor for LLM Acquisition Agents
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reinforcement learning for reasoning
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as costly, on-demand components in real systems, but calling them indiscriminately can waste substantial compute, latency, and serving budget. The key deployment question is therefore not only whether an LLM helps on average, but when it is worth calling. We identify a common failure mode, which we call acquisition collapse: an LLM signal can appear useful in aggregate or post hoc, yet still provide too little before-call information to support reliable selective use. We introduce RAISE (Reward-SNR Actionability in Signal Evaluation), a pre-routing diagnostic framework for testing whether available evidence supports selective use before committing to a routing strategy. We instantiate RAISE with Structured Hypothesis Embeddings (SHE), a frozen-LLM intent signal for recommendation using one LLM call per user, and evaluate it through controlled, retrospective, and fresh-cohort studies and a prospective offline pilot whose audit decisions are frozen before independent outcomes are revealed. Across these settings, predictable incremental benefit, not average lift alone, distinguishes settings with recoverable selective value; deployment additionally depends on cost and operational constraints. Seemingly strong oracle or subgroup gains can disappear under independent evaluation. More broadly, RAISE reframes costly inference as an information-acquisition problem: before paying for an expensive model, tool, sensor, or measurement, first test whether its value is predictable at decision time. This principle motivates cost-aware acquisition in settings ranging from agent tool use and stronger-model consultation to robotic sensing and clinical decision pipelines.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 31 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.
Builds on
31 of 46 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 30
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2018Self-Attentive Sequential Recommendationcited by 1,169
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 799
- 2023FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performancecited by 791
- 2015Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 685
- 2024RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Datacited by 633
- 2015Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forestscited by 597
- 2017Meta-learners for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Machine Learningcited by 475
- 2017Quasi-Oracle Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effectscited by 328
- 2020Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expertcited by 262
- 2017Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accuracy by Learning to Defercited by 228
- 2024RouterBench: A Benchmark for Multi-LLM Routing Systemcited by 222
18 more
- 2023LLMRec: Large Language Models with Graph Augmentation for Recommendationcited by 171
- 2023Representation Learning with Large Language Models for Recommendationcited by 155
- 2018EDDI: Efficient Dynamic Discovery of High-Value Information with Partial VAEcited by 85
- 2023Towards Open-World Recommendation with Knowledge Augmentation from Large Language Modelscited by 74
- 2024A Unified Approach to Routing and Cascading for LLMscited by 71
- 2024Learning to Route LLMs with Confidence Tokenscited by 66
- 2025BEST-Route: Adaptive LLM Routing with Test-Time Optimal Computecited by 63
- 2020Active Feature Acquisition with Generative Surrogate Modelscited by 53
- 2026LLMRouterBench: A Massive Benchmark and Unified Framework for LLM Routingcited by 35
- 2021Evaluating Treatment Prioritization Rules via Rank-Weighted Average Treatment Effectscited by 29
- 2021Causal Decision Making and Causal Effect Estimation Are Not the Same... and Why It Matterscited by 25
- 2019Experimental Evaluation of Individualized Treatment Rulescited by 16
- 2025A Survey on Active Feature Acquisition Strategiescited by 16
- 2025Beating the Winner's Curse via Inference-Aware Policy Optimizationcited by 5
- 2026Winner's Curse Drives False Promises in Data-Driven Decisions: A Case Study in Refugee Matchingcited by 3
- 2026Opportunity Is Not Realizability: Selection-Valid Diagnostics for Multi-LLM Routingcited by 3
- 2025HypoGeneAgent: A Hypothesis Language Agent for Gene-Set Cluster Resolution Selection Using Perturb-seq Datasetscited by 1
- 2026LLMRouter: Unified Infrastructure for Developing, Evaluating, and Deploying LLM Routerscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Memory Reward Inflation in Self-Improving LLM Agents
- 2026The Dark Room in the Reward Channel: Dense Prediction Rewards Collapse GRPO-Trained LLM Agents -- and The Channel, Not the Content, Decides What Works
- 2026Passing the Test You Trained On: Re-evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors for LLM Agents
- 2026Calibrate, Don't Curate: Label-Efficient Estimation from Noisy LLM Judges
- 2025Low-probability Tokens Sustain Exploration in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward
- 2026Rate or Fate? RLV^varepsilonR: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Noisy Rewards
- 2026STOCKTAKE: Measuring the Gap Between Perception and Action in LLM Agents with a Fair Oracle
- 2026Reward Models Are Secretly Value Functions: Temporally Coherent Reward Modeling