Papers › The Replay Gap: Static Evaluation of Model Switching in LLM Agents Scores the Wrong World
The Replay Gap: Static Evaluation of Model Switching in LLM Agents Scores the Wrong World
Ashritha Gonuguntla
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
LLM routers promise efficiency by matching each request to the cheapest adequate model, and are increasingly applied per step inside multi-step agents. Yet agentic routers are evaluated like single-turn routers: by replaying logged trajectories and substituting another model's recorded outputs, assuming the rest of the trajectory is unaffected. We test this assumption with branching rollouts: we fork live SWE-bench agent trajectories at controlled points, rebuild the environment, continue each fork with a different model, and compare against same-model control forks that isolate sampling and replay noise. Across six paired runs (~900 rollouts), swaps exceed their matched control floors by +0.25 to +0.66 normalized edit distance (multiplicity-corrected CIs exclude zero), rewriting 61-94% of post-fork actions; 74-77% of early swaps diverge at the first post-fork action, versus 6-35% of controls, leaving only 3% of replayed states valid. Divergence decreases with fork depth in both directions. All five outcome flips we observe occur in swap arms, upgrades rescuing unsolved instances and a downgrade losing the sole solve, and zero occur across 359 control forks. Scoring these same swaps with a log-stitching replay evaluator, replay mispredicts every success-relevant outcome call and predicts patches with 0.00-0.11 similarity to reality. Auditing the noise floor, temperature-0 "determinism" is configuration-dependent: FP8-served controls diverge on over 90% of forks while AWQ-served ones remain near-identical; and under tight budgets the stronger model more often exhausts its steps without submitting. Replay-based benchmarks score the wrong world for agentic routing; we release our harness and all trajectories.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.08239")
Code
Syntology Ran 6 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 6 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 6 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from AshrithaG/replay-gap. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
3dafafdf0809bf82 · report
4eee563f1acfb14a · report
2759df64bedf7884 · report
0ec3f8fbc6028884 · report
cf3c08d85122d751 · report
3a5eee7eec29353f · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.08239, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections