Explainable Model Routing for Agentic Workflows
Organizations: Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Abstract
Modern agentic workflows decompose complex tasks into specialized subtasks and route them to diverse models to minimize cost without sacrificing quality. However, current routing architectures focus exclusively on performance optimization, leaving underlying trade-offs between model capability and cost unrecorded. Without clear rationale, developers cannot distinguish between intelligent efficiency -- using specialized models for appropriate tasks -- and latent failures caused by budget-driven model selection. We present Topaz, a framework that introduces formal auditability to agentic routing. Topaz replaces silent model assignments with an inherently interpretable router that incorporates three components: (i) skill-based profiling that synthesizes performance across diverse benchmarks into granular capability profiles (ii) fully traceable routing algorithms that utilize budget-based and multi-objective optimization to produce clear traces of how skill-match scores were weighed against costs, and (iii) developer-facing explanations that translate these traces into natural language, allowing users to audit system logic and iteratively tune the cost-quality tradeoff. By making routing decisions interpretable, Topaz enables users to understand, trust, and meaningfully steer routed agentic systems.
Figures & tables
| Model | Math | Logic | Code | Tool | Fact. | Write | Instr. | Summ. | ($) | ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude-Opus-4.5 | .967 | .966 | .974 | .988 | .955 | .969 | .979 | .963 | 5.00 | 25.00 |
| Gemini-3-Pro | .999 | .988 | .981 | .953 | .999 | .999 | .984 | .996 | 2.00 | 12.00 |
| GPT-5.2 | .991 | .974 | .992 | .849 | .981 | .971 | .903 | .995 | 1.75 | 14.00 |
| Llama-4-Maverick | .660 | .626 | .433 | .504 | .826 | .851 | .719 | .817 | 0.15 | 0.60 |
| Mistral-Small-3.1 | .506 | .578 | .593 | .544 | .704 | .872 | .763 | .817 | 0.10 | 0.30 |
| Assignments | Trace-driven Explanation of Routing Decisions | |
| 0.00 | TC → Gemini-3-Pro KB → Claude-Opus-4.5 TD → Claude-Opus-4.5 RC → Gemini-3-Pro RD → Gemini-3-Pro ES → Gemini-3-Pro | With cost sensitivity set to zero, the engine prioritized raw performance over cost, selecting Claude Opus for the most complex tasks—Technical Diagnosis and Knowledge Base Search—due to its superior logical reasoning and tool-use capabilities. Gemini 3 Pro was routed to tasks like Refund Calculation and Response Drafting where its high-tier mathematical reasoning and writing quality were the primary success factors. For simpler objectives like Ticket Classification and Escalation Summary, the system selected Gemini because it fully satisfied the required skill sets [ ] |
| 0.50 | TC → Mistral-Small-3.1 KB → Gemini-3-Pro TD → Gemini-3-Pro RC → Gemini-3-Pro RD → Gemini-3-Pro ES → Mistral-Small-3.1 | For high-complexity tasks like Technical Diagnosis and Refund Calculation, Gemini was selected because it offered the strongest alignment with critical skills like logical reasoning and mathematical precision while maintaining a significantly better cost-to-performance ratio than Claude. In contrast, for simpler or high-volume tasks such as Ticket Classification and Escalation Summary, the engine prioritized Mistral to maximize cost savings, as its summarization and extraction capabilities were sufficient for the lower quality-sensitivity requirements. Ultimately, the system reserves premium compute for tasks requiring specialized skills like tool use [ ] |
| 1.00 | TC → Mistral-Small-3.1 KB → Mistral-Small-3.1 TD → Gemini-3-Pro RC → Mistral-Small-3.1 RD → Mistral-Small-3.1 ES → Mistral-Small-3.1 | For most tasks, including Ticket Classification and Response Drafting, the engine prioritized Mistral because your high cost sensitivity outweighed the marginal quality gains of larger models, as Mistral provided sufficient capabilities for summarization and writing. However, for the high-complexity Technical Diagnosis task, the system selected Gemini to ensure the superior logical reasoning and tool-use performance necessary for that specific objective. Even for difficult tasks like Refund Calculation, the engine opted for more economical models like Mistral, effectively trading off specialized mathematical reasoning to adhere to your strict cost constraints. |
| TC=Ticket Classification, KB=Knowledge Base Search, TD=Technical Diagnosis, RC=Refund Calculation, RD=Response Drafting, ES=Escalation Summary. See Appendix B.5 for full score breakdowns and results at . | ||
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Skill Weights ( ) | |||||||||
| Benchmark | Math | Logic | Code | Tool | Fact. | Write | Instr. | Summ. | Max Score |
| TextArena | — | .15 | — | — | .15 | .35 | .35 | — | 1481 |
| SearchArena | — | — | — | .30 | .20 | .20 | — | .30 | 1224 |
| BFCL v4 | — | .15 | — | .70 | — | — | .15 | — | 77.47 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | .40 | .30 | .30 | — | — | — | — | 75.4 |
| LiveCodeBench | .10 | .30 | .50 | — | — | — | .10 | — | 86.41 |
| Skill Requirements ( ) | Routing Params | Token Est. | ||||||||||
| Subtask | Math | Logic | Code | Tool | Fact. | Write | Instr. | Summ. | ||||
| Ticket Classification | — | .10 | — | — | — | — | .40 | .50 | 0.65 | 0.25 | 400 | 80 |
| Knowledge Base Search | — | — | — | .40 | — | — | .30 | .30 | 0.55 | 0.50 | 500 | 1000 |
| Technical Diagnosis | — | .40 | — | .30 | — | — | .10 | .20 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 2000 | 500 |
| Refund Calculation | .40 | .40 | — | — | — | — | .20 | — | 0.95 | 0.80 | 1200 | 200 |
| Response Drafting | — | — | — | — | — | .60 | .40 | — | 0.90 | 0.60 | 1500 | 400 |
| Selected Model | Runner-up | ||||||||||
| Task | Model | Model | Decisive Factor | ||||||||
| : quality-only (cost weight for all tasks) | |||||||||||
| 0.00 | TC | Gemini-3 | 1.00 | .143 | .650 | all tied | 1.00 | 0.143 | .650 | .000 | Tiebreak best non-capped |
| KB | Claude-O | .995 | 1.00 | .547 | Gemini-3 | .981 | .154 | .540 | .007 | Highest via tool_use | |
| TD | Claude-O | .711 | 1.00 | .711 | Gemini-3 | .709 | .144 | .709 | .002 | Highest in logic+tool_use | |
| RC | Gemini-3 | .697 | .142 | .662 | GPT-5.2 | .691 | .145 | .657 | .005 | Best math+logic | |
| Budget | Assignments | Trace-driven Explanation of Routing Decisions |
| $5.00 | TC Mistral-Small-3.1 KB Mistral-Small-3.1 TD Llama-4-Maverick RC Llama-4-Maverick RD Mistral-Small-3.1 ES Mistral-Small-3.1 | To maximize quality within the budget, the engine routed lower-complexity tasks like Ticket Classification and Escalation Summary to Mistral, as its summarization and instruction-following capabilities provided the best value for standard requirements. For the highly sensitive Technical Diagnosis and Refund Calculation tasks, the system upgraded to Llama-4-Maverick to leverage its stronger logical and mathematical reasoning. Because top-tier frontier models like GPT-5.2 or Gemini-3-Pro were cost-prohibitive for the entire six-task sequence, these selections represent the most effective performance-to-cost tradeoff available under your constraints. |
| $50.00 | TC Mistral-Small-3.1 KB Gemini-3-Pro TD Gemini-3-Pro RC Gemini-3-Pro RD Gemini-3-Pro ES Mistral-Small-3.1 | We prioritized Gemini for high-stakes tasks like Technical Diagnosis, Refund Calculation, and Response Drafting because these required the advanced logical reasoning, mathematical accuracy, and writing quality necessary to meet your high quality-sensitivity targets. To stay within budget, we routed simpler tasks like Ticket Classification and Escalation Summary to the more economical Mistral, leveraging its efficiency for basic summarization and instruction following where precision was less critical. While elite models like Claude Opus were evaluated, they were excluded to prevent a budget overrun, leaving Gemini as the optimal balance for providing necessary tool-use and complex reasoning capabilities. This strategy ensures that your most complex requirements receive top-tier performance while maintaining overall cost-effectiveness for routine operations. |
| $100.00 | TC Mistral-Small-3.1 KB Gemini-3-Pro TD Claude-Opus-4.5 RC Gemini-3-Pro RD Gemini-3-Pro ES Mistral-Small-3.1 | We prioritized the most resource-intensive task, Technical Diagnosis, by selecting Claude-Opus to leverage its superior logical reasoning and tool-use capabilities where quality sensitivity was at its maximum. To offset this premium cost, we routed low-complexity tasks like Ticket Classification and Escalation Summary to Mistral, which provides sufficient summarization and extraction skills at a fraction of the price. The remaining high-sensitivity tasks, such as Refund Calculation and Response Drafting, were assigned to Gemini to ensure high-tier mathematical and writing precision without exceeding the total budget. This strategy successfully balances peak performance for critical reasoning steps with aggressive cost-saving on tasks where the user indicated lower quality requirements. |
| TC=Ticket Classification, KB=Knowledge Base Search, TD=Technical Diagnosis, RC=Refund Calculation, RD=Response Drafting, ES=Escalation Summary. | ||
LLM Agent Routing
LLM agent routing selects models, tools, skills, or collaboration workflows for each task or step to balance capability, cost, latency, and reliability.
See all 99 papers