Most progress towards more capable AI has come from enlarging the expensive part: bigger models, more data and compute, longer reasoning chains, more agents. A 2026 paper argues that further gains may come instead from pairing that machinery with a cheap predictor that decides, before anything runs, which pieces of work are worth paying for. It is an arXiv preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed, and a theoretical perspective: it reports no experiments of its own.

The authors call the costly executor System-2 and the cheap predictor System-1. The labels describe roles, not model types, and System-1 might be a small language model. Each candidate interaction is scored before it runs. An interaction here means any costly exchange whose value is known only afterwards, such as a generated answer, a robot trajectory or a tool call. In the example architecture the paper sketches, a small network predicts the candidate's usefulness and its own uncertainty about that guess. A threshold, tuned on the fly to hold a target admission rate, decides what System-2 executes, and the outcomes are used to retrain the predictor. A small sample of rejected candidates is run anyway, to check what the gate wrongly turns away.

The case starts from waste. Under the power-law curves that describe how a model's error falls with compute, the authors note, the gain from one more undirected interaction shrinks towards zero as compute grows. Their main example is reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, in which a reasoning model trains on problems whose answers a program can check. In the GRPO method, each sampled answer is scored against the others for the same prompt. If every answer earns the same reward, the prompt contributes nothing to the GRPO update yet still pays for every sample. Citing earlier work, the authors say a substantial fraction of prompt pools behaves this way.

The formal results amount to careful accounting. With a perfect, free screener and equal execution costs, execution compute falls by a factor approaching 1/ρ_u, where ρ_u is the share of candidates genuinely worth running. Efficiency is scored as useful results divided by screening plus execution cost. The paper says it should always be reported alongside yield, the useful results per candidate screened, so that a system cannot look efficient by doing almost nothing. Another proposition holds that if System-1's error rates at each size stay fixed, the best size for System-1 does not shrink as System-2 grows more expensive. The empirical support is borrowed from existing predict-before-generate prompt-selection methods such as GRESO and MoPPS. These avoid paying for the rollouts that filter-after-generate methods, such as DAPO's dynamic sampling, spend to discover that a prompt is useless. The authors say these illustrate the framework rather than validate it.

The paper is frank about objections. The 1/ρ_u figure is a ceiling, not a realised speedup, and prediction errors, exploration, audits, retraining and distribution shift all erode it. The most consequential technical limitation, the authors say, is selective labels. System-1 learns only from what it lets System-2 run, so its mistakes about rejected candidates go uncorrected unless some are run deliberately, and the authors say a softer gate alone does not fix this. The paper's cost guarantee for AI agents assumes actions can be judged one by one. That assumption breaks on long computer-use tasks, where many clicks that are uninformative on their own are needed together. The framework also covers only a single learner, leaving out multi-agent, self-play and debate settings, which the authors regard as its most consequential boundary. Dense pretraining, they add, often comes close to conditions under which gating has no guaranteed advantage.

Under its idealised assumptions, gating only shifts the scaling curve leftward on a log-compute axis, a result the authors describe as a rescaling identity. Their central hypothesis is that ρ_u is a measurable coordinate of scaling efficiency, and that informative compute describes scaling better than total compute. The authors call measurement the decisive next step, and acknowledge that how ρ_u decays during training has not yet been measured.

Concrete versions of the idea have appeared in braintankAI. A Xiaomi Research training loop that swaps out practice questions once they stop teaching targets the same wasted-prompt problem. A KAIST AI decoding method that checks whether an image would change the answer before processing it is a gate on costly computation of the kind this paper formalises.