Papers for

workflow engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Workflow control improves fairness and speed under shared api limits

Dispatch Control for Priority-Based, Multi-Tenant Workflows under Multi-Resource External Rate Limits

Abstract: Workflow engines orchestrate pipelines of activities, which often call external APIs, on a fixed pool of worker slots, the threads that run them. When an API enforces a hard rate limit shared by all tenants and priorities, a throttled call that retries after a backoff keeps its worker slot and starves other tenants. Large Language Model provider APIs are particularly complex: their per-organization caps are low and bind independently on requests and tokens per minute. The operator can neither reconfigure the cap nor observe saturation before a request fails, so classical fair-queuing assumptions do not hold. We present Backpressure, a worker-side admission gate. It checks each call's cost atomically against shared admission state and enforces fairness over requests and tokens. A denied call releases its worker slot and waits on a durable timer, so waiting no longer blocks execution capacity. We compare against a naive retry, the AI gateway LiteLLM, and the built-in throttle of the workflow engine Temporal. On a workload with three priority classes, Backpressure raises fairness (Jain's index over each queue's fraction of its entitled share) from 0.60 to 0.89, where 1.0 is ideal. It also cuts high-priority tail latency roughly 8x. When tokens are the binding limit, all request-based baselines serve every priority equally, whereas Backpressure keeps the priority order and reaches a dominant-resource fairness of ~0.99. Admission costs one round trip to shared state, adds no measurable latency when the cap does not bind, and fails open if shared state is unavailable.

Mon 2 NovDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing
The gist
Many software systems run tasks that use shared external services with strict limits on how much they can be used. When one task hits a usage limit and retries, it can block others unfairly. The authors created a method called Backpressure that carefully checks if each task can proceed without breaking the limits and makes tasks wait without blocking others. This method makes sure different priority groups get fair access and speeds up important tasks significantly.
Open → 2611.02926v1

Hierarchy organizes logic patterns for complex workflow design

A Hierarchy of Composition Procedures for Logic-Based Workflow Patterns

Abstract: Logic-based workflow patterns capture recurring behavioural structures together with reusable temporal specifications. Their composition raises distinct problems as workflow structures become richer, including instantiation, nesting, conditional execution, repeated occurrences, and traceability of generated formulae. This paper proposes a hierarchy of Pattern Composition ($ΠC$) procedures, from $ΠC_0$ to $ΠC_4$, that organizes these requirements as progressively richer compositional capabilities. The hierarchy separates compositional complexity from the expressive power of the temporal-logic fragment, represented by $TL_j$, yielding a framework $ΠC_i[TL_j]$ for developing logical workflow specifications. We develop activation-aware Pattern Composition ($ΠC_2$), which distinguishes the structural presence of a nested pattern from its execution in a particular workflow context. We formalise its recursive procedure, analyse its properties, and define an evaluation protocol for conditional activation, conservativity under mandatory composition, and specification growth. The hierarchy also characterizes selective occurrence qualification for iterative patterns ($ΠC_3$) and provenance for tracing generated formulae to their sources ($ΠC_4$). Finally, we outline $ΠC_{\mathrm{Assist}}$, an orthogonal mode in which AI proposes and refines pattern expressions subject to the hierarchy's compositional checks.

Thu 29 OctLogic in Computer Science
The gist
Handling complex workflows means dealing with repeated steps, choices, and nested tasks, which can get confusing. The paper introduces a step-by-step system that helps put together these workflow parts logically and clearly, keeping track of when tasks actually run and how their rules relate. It also suggests ways to track where specific rules come from and to automatically improve workflow descriptions using AI. This structured approach makes designing and understanding complicated workflows easier and more reliable.
Open → 2610.40377v1

Semantic parsing workflow roles shape translation success and errors

Before Blaming the LLM, Diagnose the Workflow: A Role-Level Difficulty Profile for Translating Natural Language into Ontology-Grounded Statements

Abstract: Natural-language-to-domain-specific-language (NL-to-DSL) semantic parsing systems increasingly translate informal user descriptions into structured artifacts such as Structured Query Language (SQL) queries, Application Programming Interface (API) calls, workflows, formal specifications, and ontology-grounded domain-specific language (DSL) statements. This paper focuses on ontology-grounded Assertion Box (ABox) DSL generation: the translation of natural language domain descriptions into assertion-level DSL statements grounded in a pre-existing ontology vocabulary. In this setting, syntactic validity is often easier to achieve than semantic adequacy. Failures are frequently attributed to weak generator models, but recurring sources of difficulty are also structural: insufficient input, weak domain grounding, output template and vocabulary gaps, weak validation, and non-local repair. We propose a role-level difficulty profile for diagnosing difficulty in ontology-grounded NL-to-DSL semantic parsing at the workflow level. The profile organizes diagnostic variables across five recurring workflow roles: Input, Generator, Output, Validator, and Repairer. The seven variables are input sufficiency, context availability, grounding complexity, template fit, vocabulary coverage, validation strength, and error observability. Practitioners construct the difficulty profile through qualitative judgment over available evidence. This experience-informed, non-exhaustive difficulty profile is intended to support workflow diagnosis and guide redesign or human-in-the-loop intervention.

Mon 26 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Translating everyday language into precise computer code that fits specific domains can be tricky. The authors show that problems often come from various parts of the process—not just the computer model itself. They identify key roles in the workflow, such as input quality, how much background context is available, and how well the output is checked for errors. By examining these roles with a special profile, people can better figure out where issues occur and improve the whole translation process.
Open → 2610.35267v1

Phronix improves agent learning and reliability in scientific computing tasks

Phronix: The Capability-Centric Learning Paradigm for Agents

Abstract: Scientific computing increasingly relies on large language model-based agents for performance engineering tasks such as instrumentation, analysis, and workflow porting. However, agent effectiveness depends heavily on the surrounding harness, which typically relies on manually written skills and curated memory. This limits autonomous learning, forcing agents to repeatedly rediscover solutions rather than retain and reuse knowledge from prior executions. We introduce Phronix, a capability-centric learning paradigm that enables agentic harnesses to acquire, validate, and refine reusable capabilities from their own executions. Phronix operates through a predictor-validator-corrector loop: MCP tools and associated skills propose solutions, tool executions validate them, and observed outcomes refine the stored capabilities. It distills every observed interaction into a capability store and researches a failing task rather than abandoning it. First, such learned capabilities solve a recurring task on the first attempt in 93-95% of cases across every model, significantly reducing solution non-determinism and improving reliability. Second, Phronix turns an agent's own execution into 7.6-30.8 durable capabilities per task without user instruction, and creation falls below two once the needed capability exists. Third, warm-start runs consume only 0.38-0.40 million tokens per task, which is three to four times less than a single baseline attempt, while a cold-start costs no more than the baseline. On the 1000 Genome Pegasus workflow, instrumenting a production application for I/O performance analysis, Phronix passes all 11 correctness checks against six for the baseline harness, and also lifts the task solving rates of two cheaper models from 29% and 27% of SWE-bench tasks solved to 91% and 87%, respectively, matching the performance of the most expensive evaluated model.

Thu 22 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Solving complex computer tasks often requires software agents to learn from their own experience so they don’t make the same mistakes repeatedly. The authors present Phronix, a system that helps such agents remember successful methods and fix failures automatically by learning reusable capabilities. This leads to agents solving tasks more reliably and quickly, using less computing power over time. Phronix also improves the quality of work on real scientific workflows compared to existing approaches.
Open → 2610.31789v1

Benchmark measures how multi-agent tasks share and isolate information

CoMemBench: Benchmarking Collaborative Memory Boundaries across Multi-Agent Workflow Topologies

Abstract: Multi-agent workflows require task-relevant information to be shared across agents, while irrelevant, stale, unverified, or incompatible information must remain isolated. We call this task-conditioned scope of information a collaborative memory boundary. Workflow topology determines which intermediate artifacts are applicable to which downstream workers and when they cease to be valid, thereby providing a structural stress dimension for sharing and isolation. Existing memory benchmarks primarily evaluate retention and retrieval, whereas multi-agent benchmarks emphasize coordination and end-to-end completion, leaving topology-conditioned memory boundaries largely unmeasured. We introduce CoMemBench, an execution-grounded benchmark for collaborative memory sharing and isolation across multi-agent workflow topologies. It constructs 800 composite workflows across four domains from source-grounded dependency graphs, with node-local specifications, verifiable artifact handoffs, native evaluators, and matched isolation challenges. CoMemBench measures workflow completion, verified node progress, required-handoff reliability, isolation robustness, and token cost. Experiments reveal a sharing-isolation trade-off: broader context improves information availability but can weaken isolation, while system rankings shift across topologies and artifact violations.

Sat 26 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
When multiple agents work together on a task, they need to share the right information but keep unrelated details separate. The authors call this controlled sharing a collaborative memory boundary. They created CoMemBench, a big test set that checks how well workflows share and isolate information depending on their connection shape. Their tests show that sharing more information helps agents get the job done but can also let unwanted or incorrect info slip through.
Open → 2609.32192v1

LLMs struggle to build fully working automated workflows from end to end

MCPGen: Benchmarking LLMs on Executable MCPWorkflow Development

Abstract: We study whether LLMs can produce executable workflow artifacts that remain consistent across graph structure, tool implementation, schema bindings, and runtime wiring. In this setting, correctness depends on cross-layer consistency: a workflow may be structurally plausible, yet still fail because tool implementations, schema bindings, or runtime execution do not align. Existing benchmarks largely evaluate these capabilities in isolation or rely on trajectory-level proxies, leaving open whether generated workflow artifacts execute end-to-end. We introduce \textbf{MCPGen}, an executable benchmark for Model Context Protocol (MCP) workflow development. MCPGen contains 100 self-contained MCP projects across 16 application domains and evaluates three diagnostic tasks: workflow reconstruction, tool creation, and backward-compatible workflow extension. We evaluate 11 representative LLMs in a single-turn foundation-model setting, assessing generated artifacts through static analysis, unit and integration tests, and process-isolated end-to-end execution. Models reach 88.5\% on workflow reconstruction, but no model exceeds 57\% end-to-end execution success. Per-tool unit-test pass rates reach 63.8\%, while project-level integration success does not exceed 45\%, suggesting that integration remains a major bottleneck even when isolated tool tests pass.

Sun 20 SeptSoftware EngineeringArtificial Intelligence
The gist
The paper looks at how well large language models (LLMs) can create computer workflows that not only look correct but actually run properly from start to finish. The authors found that while models often succeed in putting together the workflow structure, they frequently fail when it comes to making sure all the parts work well together during actual execution. Even when small pieces pass individual tests, complete workflows often do not run successfully. This shows there is still a big challenge in getting AI to reliably build complex, working software processes.
Open → 2609.23925v1

LazyAgent speeds up agent programs by avoiding unrelated work

LazyAgent: Demand-Driven Materialization and Physical Optimization of Agentic Programs

Abstract: Current agent runtimes that plan before acting generally execute a step once it becomes ready. We present LazyAgent, a unified execution framework for agent-authored programs organized around a live, goal-derived demanded set. LazyAgent refreshes a backward closure from requested outputs as execution state changes and materializes a ready node only when the active goal requires it. This replaces repeated local judgments with one linear-time graph analysis followed by constant-time membership tests, allowing programs to remain broad while execution stays request-specific. On programs that describe more than the current request needs, LazyAgent consistently outperforms the strongest goal-stopping eager baseline by refusing unrelated work before it starts. Adding one unrelated product raises the eager bill by 22.5% and LazyAgent's by 0.0%. LazyAgent saves 42.0% of measured CPU on production scientific workflows and 51.7% of container time on a live release gate spanning four repositories. We also prove and verify exact equivalence when the request reaches the whole graph, leaving no unrelated work to avoid. Beyond permission, goal-relative output projection saves up to approximately 90% of a shared step on two third-party test suites while the identical eager control saves 0.0%; the advantage disappears when the omitted output has no other consumer or the request needs it. Ordering, reuse, and pruning can also save cost, but do not replace permission. Finally, we show that current public benchmarks are eager-shaped and contain almost no unrequested work. A pre-registered planning intervention did not broaden them. These findings motivate benchmarks built from standing programs and sequences.

Sat 19 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Programs that use agents often do many steps even when some aren't needed right now. The authors developed LazyAgent, which only does the steps necessary for the current goal, saving time and computer power. It does this by looking backward from what’s requested, so it doesn’t waste work on unrelated parts. Tests show it can cut CPU time nearly in half compared to usual methods that do everything eagerly.
Open → 2609.23058v1

Ai agents face hidden failures calling tools in workflows

When Tool Calls Succeed but Workflows Fail: Anomalies at the Agent-Tool Boundary

Abstract: AI agents increasingly execute long-running workflows that externalize effects through independently supplied tools. Under retries, speculative execution, concurrency, and partial failures, the resulting external state may be inconsistent with the workflow's intended resolution: required effects may be missing or duplicated, aborted effects may survive, and committed effects may depend on provisional state that is later withdrawn. Advanced transaction models address related failures, but assume that lower-level operations expose the semantics they depend on: whether an effect occurred, whether it can be compensated, staged, or safely reordered. Shared agent-tool interfaces usually do not. We contribute an effect-history model that separates events in the external world from the runtime's observations of them, and a catalog of eight recurring external-effect anomalies. From the catalog we derive the boundary capabilities required to exclude each anomaly in general, and four points where black-box tool invocation alone cannot provide a general guarantee. We then ask how much of this is expressible in a widely used shared tool interface, measuring the use of the standard annotation vocabulary across 98,291 tools exposed by registered Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. The fields are widely emitted but provide only coarse call-level hints, and none of the required capabilities is fully expressible. These results motivate reusable transactional contracts at the tool boundary.

Mon 14 SeptArtificial IntelligenceDatabasesDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing
The gist
When AI agents ask external tools to do tasks during complex workflows, sometimes things go wrong behind the scenes. The authors explain how calls to these tools can appear successful but still cause problems like missing, duplicate, or leftover effects. They studied how current shared interfaces don’t fully capture important details to prevent these errors. Their work suggests better ways to track and manage these tool interactions to avoid workflow breakdowns.
Open → 2609.15397v1

Avatar improves scientific workflow efficiency with AI orchestration

Avatar: Toward Autonomous End-to-End Orchestration of Scientific Workflows using LLMs

Abstract: Scientific workflow management (WMSs) systems automate execution, yet orchestrate using fixed, hand-tuned rules. LLM agents promise more autonomous orchestration, but it remains unclear where to introduce agentic reasoning, how to bound its risk, and when it actually helps. We present Avatar, an actor-based architecture comprising an orchestrator, an executor, and a provenance monitor. Each actor's decision policy is pluggable (rule-based or LLM-backed) via a single adapter-validated action catalog, so conventional and agentic control run on the same core across different WMSs. We present an implementation using the Academy framework and evaluate Avatar across three workloads. We observe that Avatar's rule mode reproduces native execution, with a single unchanged core running all three. Moreover, LLM-backed Avatar reports a reduction of compute wastage by $55\%$ and cuts GPU-busy time by $40\%$. Overall, we envision Avatar as a step toward workflow systems that reason about their own orchestration rather than follow pre-fixed rules.

Wed 9 SeptDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingMultiagent Systems
The gist
Scientific workflows automate research tasks but usually follow fixed rules. The paper presents Avatar, a system that uses AI (large language models) to decide how to run and manage these workflows more flexibly. Avatar can switch between traditional rule-based control and AI-driven decisions, reducing wasted computation and GPU busy time significantly. This work shows a way for scientific software to manage itself more intelligently instead of just following preset instructions.
Open → 2609.10509v1