ChromaFlow: A Negative Ablation Study of Orchestration Overhead in Tool-Augmented Agent Evaluation
Authors: Tarun Mittal
Summary
arXiv:2605. 14102v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous language-model agents increasingly combine planning, tool use, document processing, browsing, code execution, and verification loops.
Relevance
Read next because ChromaFlow: A Negative Ablation Study of Orchestration Overhead in Tool-Augmented Agent Evaluation overlaps with clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Leakage rate is a usable signal for recovering trigger-shaped phrases on Gaperon-1125-1B without knowing the hidden trigger itself (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: code, rect, under, correct, eval, token, line, extraction. Source: arxiv cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence).
Threat model
Potential threat/caveat for clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)": this item discusses failure, negative, evaluation.
Abstract
arXiv:2605.14102v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous language-model agents increasingly combine planning, tool use, document processing, browsing, code execution, and verification loops. These capabilities make agent systems more useful, but they also introduce operational failure modes that are not visible from final accuracy alone. This report presents ChromaFlow, a tool-augmented autonomous reasoning framework built around planner-directed execution, specialized tool use, and telemetry-driven evaluation. We analyze ChromaFlow on GAIA 2023 Level-1 validation tasks under clean evaluation constraints. A frozen full Level-1 baseline achieved 29/53 correct answers, or 54.72%. A later recovery configuration with expanded orchestration achieved 27/53 correct answers, or 50.94%, while increasing tracebacks, timeout events, tool-failure mentions, token-line calls, and campaign-log cost estimates. Two randomized 20-task smoke evaluations produced 12/20 and 11/20 correct answers, showing that small diagnostic gains can be unstable across samples. The central result is therefore a negative ablation: more aggressive orchestration did not improve full-set performance and increased operational noise. The report argues that bounded planner escalation, deterministic extraction, evidence reconciliation, and explicit run gates should be treated as first-order requirements for reliable autonomous agent evaluation.