Workflow Cards: Structured Summaries of Workflow Executions Using Provenance Data
Authors: Nicola Giuseppe Marchioro, Gabriele Padovani, Amal Gueroudji, Rafael Ferreira da Silva, Wesley Brewer, Valentine Anantharaj, Sandro Fiore, Renan Souza
Abstract
Model Cards and Data Cards have demonstrated the value of structured, human-readable documentation for machine learning artifacts, capturing their context, parameters, limitations, and intended use. However, these practices remain focused on static artifacts (the datasets and trained models themselves) while overlooking the workflow executions that produce, transform, and evaluate them. Such executions hold critical details about data preparation, parameter choice, runtime behavior, resource use, and intermediate transformations, precisely where bias, performance variation, and reproducibility gaps tend to originate. To close this gap, we introduce Workflow Cards: structured summaries that condense the machine-readable provenance data of a workflow execution into a form both humans and large language models (LLMs) can read and analyze. This paper has two main parts. First, it defines a Workflow Card template informed by a representative set of provenance questions that surface from the execution-level data missing from Model and Data Cards. Second, it evaluates how effectively LLMs use Workflow Cards to understand workflow executions compared with querying provenance databases through a schema-based interface. Results show that Workflow Cards provide execution-level information absent from existing card types, such as Model Cards and Data Cards, thereby filling an important documentation gap; and that Workflow Cards nearly double answer quality compared with schema-based querying, consistently across LLM-as-a-Judge and human assessments.
AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.
The rapid proliferation of Generative AI necessitates rigorous documentation standards for transparency and governance. However, manual creation of Model and Data Cards is not scalable, while automated approaches lack large-scale, high-fidelity benchmarks for systematic evaluation. We introduce MetaGAI, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 2,541 verified document triplets constructed through semantic triangulation of academic papers, GitHub repositories, and Hugging Face artifacts. Unlike prior single-source datasets, MetaGAI employs a multi-agent framework with specialized Retriever, Generator, and Editor agents, validated through four-dimensional human-in-the-loop assessment, including human evaluation of editor-refined ground truth. We establish a robust evaluation protocol combining automated metrics with validated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks. Extensive analysis reveals that sparse Mixture-of-Experts architectures achieve superior cost-quality efficiency, while a fundamental trade-off exists between faithfulness and completeness. MetaGAI provides a foundational testbed for benchmarking, training, and analyzing automated Model and Data Card generation methods at scale. Our data and code are available at: https://github.com/haoxuan-unt2024/MetaGAI-Benchmark.
Research artifacts are distributed primarily as reader-oriented documents like PDFs. This creates a bottleneck for increasingly agent-assisted and agent-native research workflows, in which LLM agents need to infer fine-grained, task-relevant information from lengthy full documents, a process that is expensive, repetitive, and unstable at scale. We introduce Knows, a lightweight companion specification that binds structured claims, evidence, provenance, and verifiable relations to existing research artifacts in a form LLM agents can consume directly. Knows addresses the gap with a thin YAML sidecar (KnowsRecord) that coexists with the original PDF, requiring no changes to the publication itself, and validated by a deterministic schema linter. We evaluate Knows on 140 comprehension questions across 20 papers spanning 14 academic disciplines, comparing PDF-only, sidecar-only, and hybrid conditions across six LLM agents of varying capacity. Weak models (0.8B--2B parameters) improve from 19--25% to 47--67% accuracy (+29 to +42 percentage points) when reading sidecar instead of PDF, while consuming 29--86% fewer input tokens; an LLM-as-judge re-scoring confirms that weak-model sidecar accuracy (75--77%) approaches stronger-model PDF accuracy (78--83%). Beyond this controlled evaluation, a community sidecar hub at https://knows.academy/ has already indexed over ten thousand publications and continues to grow daily, providing independent evidence that the format is adoption-ready at scale.