Papers
arxiv:2611.02079

ParetoSaddler: Pareto-Guided Optimization of Agent Harnesses for Quality and Cost

Published on Nov 1
· Submitted by
Jue Zhang
on Nov 4
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

ParetoSaddler improves LLM agent harnesses by separately promoting intermediate candidates via Bayesian bootstrap Pareto support and selecting final deployments, boosting quality while reducing cost.

Harness optimization can substantially improve LLM agents without modifying model weights, but existing methods primarily optimize response quality. Extending them to joint quality--cost optimization introduces a challenge: applying the deployment preference during intermediate updates can prematurely reject candidates that are valuable for later improvements. We introduce ParetoSaddler, which addresses this mismatch by separating intermediate candidate promotion from final deployment selection. At each iteration, an optimizer updates a parent harness to produce a candidate, and then compares the two over repeated executions and uses Bayesian bootstrap Pareto support to promote candidates showing credible progress in either quality or cost. Promoted candidates receive broader development evaluation and remain available as parents for later optimization steps. We evaluate ParetoSaddler on ClawMark and GAIA2 using domain-disjoint splits. On ClawMark, ParetoSaddler improves quality from 70.86\% to 81.35\% while reducing cost from \1.17 to 1.01 per task; on GAIA2, it improves quality from 56.22\% to 62.89\% while reducing cost from \0.78 to 0.45 per task. The Pareto-selected harnesses also achieve higher quality at lower cost than quality-only harness optimization. Analysis shows that Pareto-aware optimization retains intermediate candidates that would be discarded by deployment preference but can support later improvements, while Bayesian bootstrap screening filters out candidates whose gains are weakly supported across runs.

Community

Paper submitter

The code is available at: https://github.com/microsoft/AutoSaddler/tree/feat/paretosaddler. We welcome your comments and feedback!

Nice work! i think the pareto-aware evolving is the right path, but i am curious how ParetoSaddler compares with GEPA?

·

Thanks for the great question! GEPA is indeed closely related, and we share the idea of Pareto-guided evolution.

One key distinction is that GEPA uses Pareto selection across task instances to maintain diverse candidates, whereas ParetoSaddler explicitly considers two competing objectives: quality and cost.

Another distinction is that GEPA's original work primarily focuses on prompt evolution, while ParetoSaddler targets the broader agent harness, including prompts, tools, and control logic. While GEPA can also support broader optimization, a direct comparison would require carefully aligning their optimization scopes and objectives.

That said, we did compare GEPA against our earlier work, AutoSaddler, in the original AutoSaddler paper. AutoSaddler also serves as the quality-only baseline (AS-Quality) in this work. Hope this helps clarify the relationship!

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2611.02079
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.02079 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.02079 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.02079 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.