Evaluating Inference Compute for Generative AI: A Framework for Enterprise Workloads
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents also fits: Agent memory systems
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM deployment is shifting from single-turn completion to agentic trajectories in which a model plans, calls tools, reads results and reasons at test time before acting. This inverts the economics of inference hardware: chat serving amortises weight reads across large batches, whereas agent trajectories are sequentially dependent, run at effective batch one, and make per-token decode latency (TPOT) the dominant term in task completion time. Using a roofline analysis and a closed-form episode-latency model, we show why this regime favours accelerators that keep weights in on-die SRAM (Cerebras WSE-3/3T, Groq/NVIDIA LPU) or compiler-managed tiered memory (SambaNova SN40L/SN50), and why three vendor ecosystems converged in 2026 on disaggregated prefill/decode serving. We show that per-step reliability compounds exponentially in trajectory length-a 2% per-step failure rate erases a 2x decode advantage for a 20-step agent-so determinism and tail latency are first-order performance variables. We then propose a four-layer evaluation framework (silicon, serving system, agent episode, enterprise) with a metric set built on goodput at an agentic SLO and cost per successful episode, a six-axis benchmark protocol over six task families, a paired-bootstrap statistical design, an attestation protocol for vendor-run benchmarks, and TCO, availability and adoption-timing models with explicit break-even conditions. All performance figures are public and labelled by evidence class; we state seven falsifiable hypotheses and the experiments that test them, and argue that the most likely original result is that token-throughput rankings diverge from cost-per-successful-task rankings on long-horizon work.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026From LLM Inference to Agentic Workloads: Characterization and Implications for Serving Systems
- 2026Heterogeneous Computing: The Key to Powering the Future of AI Agent Inference
- 2026SPORK: Self-Speculative Forking to Accelerate Agentic LLM Inference
- 2026AgentPerfBench: A Benchmarking and Evaluation Suite for Inference Performance of Agentic LLMs
- 2026Understanding Inference Scaling for LLMs: Bottlenecks, Trade-offs, and Performance Principles
- 2026InferenceBench: A Benchmark for Open-Ended LLM Inference Optimization by AI Agents
- 2026End-to-End Latency-Minimizing and Load-Balanced Request Scheduling for Edge LLM Inference in Agentic AI Services
- 2026Sutradhara: An Intelligent Orchestrator-Engine Co-design for Tool-based Agentic Inference