arXiv:2608. 10039v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic workflows have become an important abstraction for building reliable LLM-based automation systems by organizing large language models (LLMs), tools, and control logic into explicit execution structures.
By Shuo Hao, You Lu, Bihuan Chen, Xin Peng
The paper introduces InFlowOp, a label‑free optimization framework that assigns costs to each decision in a multi‑agent workflow, balancing agent competence against execution time. It determines task granularity and agent assignment before execution and corrects faults during execution using the same cost metric. The authors also present Braid, a benchmark for multi‑agent coordination, and show that InFlowOp outperforms single‑agent baselines by up to 11.97% across various domains.
By Xuehang Guo, Haoyu Wang, Shengyu Chen, Zach Chen, Wei Cheng, Qingyun Wang, Haifeng Chen
arXiv:2606. 12674v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Compact language models (LMs) reduce cost, latency, and deployment risk for tool agents.
By Kushal Raj Bhandari, Ling Yue, Ching-Yun Ko, Dhaval Patel, Shaowu Pan, Pin-Yu Chen, Jianxi Gao
The paper introduces BenchAgent, a framework for evaluating multi‑agent large language model (LLM) workflows against a single‑agent baseline, BenchAgent Core. Using GPT‑4.1 across ten reasoning, coding, and tool‑use benchmarks, the study compares six multi‑agent configurations, finding that EvoAgent achieves the highest mean pooled accuracy (79.70%) while other agents lag by 1.71–8.76 percentage points. The analysis also highlights trade‑offs in token consumption and accuracy, offering guidance for selecting and optimizing LLM multi‑agent workflows.
By Yuhang Fu, Ruishan Fang, Jiaqi Shao, Huiyu Zheng, Zhengtao Zhu, Bing Luo, Zhenyu Wen, Tao Lin
arXiv:2609.01045v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities as powerful components in agentic systems, enabling sophisticated reasoning and...
By Enci Zhang, Haofeng Wang, Yuesheng Zhu, Xiaole Cui, Guibo Luo
The paper investigates how different components of test-time inference—prompting, post-processing, and selection—affect performance in structured workflow planning on DisasterBench. By breaking inference into discovery, validation, and selection stages, the authors compare independent sampling, nominal tree-search, and multi-operator search across two model families. Their findings show that while tree-search and independent sampling achieve similar workflow discovery, structural validation rarely discards correct workflows, yet majority voting often fails to select them, revealing significant tool-choice or information-flow errors. A tool-specification-aware verifier can recover some losses but also overturns more correct decisions.
By Zhitong Chen, Weifeng Zhang, Kai Yin, Zhiyuan Wang, Ali Mostafavi, James Caverlee