Inside organizations, a question's data often sit with several owners, who query their own tables but never hand them over. An LLM coordinator can fan out, sending the question to every owner at once, or relay, querying owners in turn and reusing earlier rows. We show that neither is safe in advance, because data ownership decides which one is right. Across thirteen settings on PeopleJoin and BIRD with three model families, fan-out is more accurate in twelve on questions one owner can answer, yet answers at most 4.3% of those joining two owners' tables. The flip follows ownership, not query shape: on BIRD two-table joins, fan-out answers 32-44% when one owner holds both and 1-4% otherwise. Relay wins by conditioning on returned rows, and hiding them from an otherwise identical planner cuts two-owner accuracy from 23.2% to 5.1%. Since ownership is public, we propose Ownership-Aware Routing (OAR), which drafts a schema-only SQL query, counts the owners whose tables it joins, and routes the question before any private row is read. In ten settings OAR is never significantly less accurate than the best fixed protocol, and beats every fixed protocol on PeopleJoin, by up to 9.3 points on held-out organizations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (1) A coordinator answers a question over tables held by different owners, who publish their schemas but keep their rows. (2) When the question joins tables of two owners, fan-out fails because Alice’s department ids never reach Bob, while relay places them in its query to Bob. (3) OAR drafts one SQL query over the public schema, counts the owners whose tables it joins (its owner cover κ , Equation 1 ), and routes the question before any private row is read.
Pool
DBs
Qs
1-own.
Split
2-own.
Models
PJ-8a
8
96
41
2
36
DS
PJ-8b
8
494
275
14
138
DS, So
PJ-7
7
511
203
45
134
DS, So, Qw
PJ-Unseen
108
300
147
29
71
DS, Qw
BIRD
11
500
130
–
293
DS, So, Qw
BIRD-Unseen
11
300
68
–
171
DS, Qw
Table 1: Evaluation pools. Single-owner, row-split and two-owner counts use the reference cover κ (Section 2 ). The other questions need three or more owners, are unanswerable or have references whose tables could not be resolved. DS, So, Qw: DeepSeek, Sonnet, Qwen.
Figure 2: Accuracy of fan-out and relay on single-owner questions (left) and two-owner questions (right) in all thirteen settings. Diamonds mark OAR in the ten settings where it runs. Fan-out leads on the left and collapses on the right, while OAR stays close to fan-out on the left and to relay on the right.
One owner
Two owners
Setting
FO
RL
FO
RL
Diff.
BIRD, DS
36.4
25.0
4.2
25.9
+33.0
BIRD, So
31.8
27.3
3.0
28.9
+30.4
BIRD, Qw
36.4
27.3
2.7
30.0
+36.5
BIRD-Uns., DS
44.4
22.2
1.3
23.9
+44.9
BIRD-Uns., Qw
38.9
38.9
3.1
34.6
+31.4
Table 2: Accuracy (%) on questions whose reference SQL joins exactly two tables, by whether the hash-based partition gives both tables to one owner (44 questions on BIRD, 18 on BIRD-Unseen) or to two (263 and 159). FO: fan-out, RL: relay. Diff.: fan-out’s lead with one owner minus its lead with two, in points, with every 95% interval above zero.
Figure 3: Two-owner accuracy in the mechanism experiments. The first two bars show the Relay+ planner without its key-passing instruction, with the returned rows visible or hidden. The planned variant writes all of relay’s queries before any row returns. With Sonnet on PJ-8b the comparisons point the same way with smaller gaps.
Fixed protocols
Other routers
Ownership routing
Setting
Fan-out
Relay
Relay+
Self
Ask
Difficulty
OAR
OAR+
PJ-7, DeepSeek
39.5
36.9
38.1
38.6
39.7
–
42.0 †
41.4
PJ-7, Sonnet
39.3
31.1
–
–
–
–
42.7 †
–
PJ-7, Qwen
41.3
41.5
–
42.3
43.4
–
44.2 †
–
PJ-Unseen, DeepSeek
52.7
54.0
53.0
60.9
58.3
–
63.3 †
61.3
PJ-Unseen, Qwen
55.7
57.7
56.7
62.7
60.0
–
65.0 †
65.0
Table 3: Accuracy (%) of the fixed protocols and the routers. Each router picks the saved fan-out or relay run of a question by the model’s choice (Self), by the owners the model says the question needs (Ask), by BIRD’s gold difficulty labels (Difficulty) or by the draft’s owner cover (OAR). Bold marks the highest accuracy in each row, and † marks OAR when its 95% interval against the best fixed protocol lies above zero (Appendix C ).
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Single-owner
Row-split
Two-owner
Unanswerable
Setting
FO
RL
OAR
FO
RL
OAR
FO
RL
OAR
FO
RL
OAR
PJ-7, DeepSeek
46.3
41.6
45.8
22.2
12.2
22.2
0.0
11.6
10.1
92.5
78.3
92.5
PJ-7, Sonnet
45.3
40.9
45.3
20.0
17.8
20.0
2.2
14.2
12.7
91.5
41.5
90.6
PJ-7, Qwen
51.2
45.8
50.7
22.2
13.3
22.2
0.0
12.7
11.9
91.5
90.6
91.5
PJ-Unseen, DeepSeek
77.6
67.3
76.2
55.2
10.3
51.7
1.4
47.9
47.9
75.0
58.3
66.7
PJ-Unseen, Qwen
80.3
74.1
80.3
69.0
24.1
69.0
1.4
38.0
38.0
75.0
72.2
72.2
Appendix
Table 4: Accuracy (%) by reference owner cover. FO: fan-out, RL: relay. OAR follows fan-out on single-owner, row-split and unanswerable questions and relay on two-owner questions. BIRD has no row-split or unanswerable questions. On PJ-Unseen the last group also contains four questions whose reference tables could not be resolved.
Single-owner
Two-owner
Three or more owners
Setting
FO
RL
RL+
OAR
OAR+
FO
RL
RL+
OAR
OAR+
FO
RL
RL+
OAR
OAR+
PJ-7, DS
46.3
41.6
41.9
45.8
46.1
0.0
11.6
8.2
10.1
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PJ-7, So
45.3
40.9
–
45.3
–
2.2
14.2
–
12.7
–
0.0
21.7
–
17.4
–
PJ-7, Qw
51.2
45.8
–
50.7
–
0.0
12.7
–
11.9
–
0.0
0.0
–
0.0
–
PJ-Unseen, DS
77.6
67.3
68.7
76.2
75.5
1.4
47.9
40.8
47.9
40.8
0.0
29.4
17.6
29.4
17.6
PJ-Unseen, Qw
80.3
74.1
73.5
80.3
80.3
1.4
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
5.9
23.5
17.6
23.5
17.6
Appendix
Table 5: Accuracy (%) by reference owner cover, including Relay+ and OAR+. FO: fan-out, RL: relay, RL+: Relay+. Single-owner questions exclude the row-split questions of Table 4 . Three-or-more groups hold 23 (PJ-7), 17 (PJ-Unseen), 69 (BIRD) and 41 (BIRD-Unseen) questions.
Setting
Relay
Relay+
PJ-8a, DS
+24.0 [5.5, 43.1]
–
PJ-8b, DS
+37.2 [28.1, 46.3]
–
PJ-8b, So
+33.3 [23.5, 43.5]
–
PJ-7, DS
+16.2 [8.7, 24.6]
+12.6 [5.6, 20.2]
PJ-7, So
+16.4 [8.0, 25.5]
–
PJ-7, Qw
+18.1 [10.9, 25.8]
–
Appendix
Table 6: Interaction between protocol and ownership in points: the advantage of relay (or Relay+) over fan-out on two-owner questions minus its advantage on single-owner questions, with 95% intervals.
Fan-out
Relay
Setting
Correct
Abst.
Wrong
Stop.
Correct
Abst.
Key
No key
Stop.
PJ-7, DeepSeek
0.0
80.6
19.4
0.0
11.9
42.5
23.1
16.4
6.0
PJ-7, Qwen
0.0
81.3
17.9
0.7
12.7
54.5
20.1
12.7
0.0
PJ-Unseen, DeepSeek
1.4
90.1
8.5
0.0
47.9
19.7
18.3
8.5
5.6
BIRD, DeepSeek
4.1
78.2
16.4
1.4
25.3
18.4
28.7
4.8
22.9
BIRD, Qwen
3.1
77.8
18.1
1.0
28.7
27.0
32.1
4.8
7.5
Appendix
Table 7: Outcomes on two-owner questions (% of questions, first run). Abst.: the receiver declares the question unanswerable or returns no rows. Wrong: wrong rows. Key and No key: wrong rows after relay passed a key or without one. Stop.: the run ends early, for relay mostly because its provenance reserve is exhausted.
Q: What is the amount of the funds that the Vice President received? (BIRD, student_club )
Step 1 , owner of member : SELECT member_id FROM member WHERE position = 'Vice President' LIMIT 5 → recD078PnS3x2doBe
Step 2 , owner of income : SELECT amount FROM income WHERE link_to_member = 'recD078PnS3x2doBe' LIMIT 5 → 50
Relay answers 50, which is correct. Under fan-out each owner answers alone, and the receiver abstains.
Appendix
Table 8: A relay run with DeepSeek in which the member id returned by one owner becomes the filter of the query to the next owner.
Accuracy (%)
Setting
Runs
Key (%)
key
no key
Share (%)
PJ-7, DS
268
52.6
12.1
11.0
54.8
PJ-7, So
134
65.7
15.9
10.9
73.7
PJ-7, Qw
134
44.8
15.0
10.8
52.9
PJ-Uns., DS
71
74.6
58.5
16.7
91.2
PJ-Uns., Qw
71
64.8
50.0
16.0
85.2
Appendix
Table 9: Key passing in relay runs on two-owner questions. Key: share of runs in which a later query contains a literal value that a different owner returned earlier. Share: fraction of the correct runs that passed a key.
At most 20 rows
More than 20
Setting
Qs
FO
RL
Qs
FO
RL
PJ-8a, DS
34
61.8
55.9
7
14.3
0.0
PJ-8b, DS
218
59.9
49.5
57
33.3
0.0
PJ-8b, So
218
52.8
55.0
57
21.1
1.8
PJ-7, DS
173
48.6
48.8
30
33.3
0.0
PJ-7, So
173
46.8
47.4
30
36.7
3.3
Appendix
Table 10: Single-owner accuracy (%) by the number of rows in the reference answer. Relay limits each step to 20 rows.
Setting
OAR − FO
OAR − RL
OAR − best
OAR+ − RL+
OAR+ − OAR
PJ-7, DeepSeek
+2.4 [1.0, 4.0]
+5.1 [2.3, 7.9]
+2.4 [1.0, 4.0]
+3.3 [0.9, 5.9]
− 0.6 [ − 1.5, 0.3]
PJ-7, Sonnet
+3.3 [1.4, 5.3]
+11.5 [7.8, 15.3]
+3.3 [1.4, 5.3]
–
–
PJ-7, Qwen
+2.9 [1.4, 4.5]
+2.7 [0.6, 5.1]
+2.7 [0.6, 5.1]
–
–
PJ-Unseen, DeepSeek
+10.7 [6.3, 15.0]
+9.3 [5.0, 13.7]
+9.3 [5.0, 13.7]
+8.3 [4.0, 12.7]
− 2.0 [ − 4.7, 0.3]
PJ-Unseen, Qwen
+9.3 [5.7, 13.0]
+7.3 [3.0, 11.7]
+7.3 [3.0, 11.7]
+8.3 [4.0, 12.7]
+0.0 [ − 2.0, 2.0]
BIRD, DeepSeek
+14.3 [11.1, 17.6]
+3.6 [1.4, 5.9]
− 1.5 [ − 4.4, 1.4]
+1.3 [ − 0.7, 3.3]
+2.8 [0.7, 4.9]
Appendix
Table 11: Paired differences in points with 95% intervals. FO: fan-out, RL: relay, RL+: Relay+. “Best” is the most accurate fixed protocol of the setting, including Relay+ where it runs.
Figure 4: Expected accuracy as the share of two-owner questions varies, obtained by reweighting the measured single-owner and two-owner accuracies. OAR stays near the better of fan-out and relay for every mix and exceeds both at intermediate mixes.
Single-owner
Two-owner
All questions
Setting
FO
RL
OAR
FO
RL
OAR
FO
RL
OAR
PJ-7, DeepSeek
50.8
47.1
49.5
1.1
13.1
12.4
43.0
40.9
45.7
PJ-7, Sonnet
49.5
42.4
49.1
3.2
18.7
17.7
42.1
33.6
46.4
PJ-7, Qwen
53.1
51.2
52.6
1.2
15.2
15.1
43.3
45.9
47.1
PJ-Unseen, DeepSeek
80.0
69.0
78.6
3.3
54.7
52.5
54.9
59.8
67.4
PJ-Unseen, Qwen
81.0
74.9
81.0
3.3
45.6
44.6
57.4
62.7
68.2
Appendix
Table 12: Row-level F1 (%), which gives partial credit for overlapping rows. FO: fan-out, RL: relay. Bold marks the highest F1 over all questions in each row.
Draft
Accuracy (%)
Setting
Prec.
Rec.
Oracle
OAR
Table
JOIN
PJ-7, DS
94.9
65.6
42.6
42.0
41.1
40.6
PJ-7, So
96.9
59.2
43.4
42.7
43.1
42.9
PJ-7, Qw
94.5
66.2
44.6
44.2
43.8
43.8
PJ-Uns., DS
87.9
90.9
65.3
63.3
–
–
PJ-Uns., Qw
93.7
84.1
65.3
65.0
–
–
Appendix
Table 13: How the draft routes. Precision and recall of the draft’s multi-owner ( κ≥2 ) prediction against the reference cover. Oracle routes by the reference cover with the same relay branch as OAR. Table and JOIN route the same draft on its table count or on the presence of a JOIN.
Setting
Best
OAR
8B
Δ [95% CI]
Rec.
PJ-7, DS
39.5
42.0
39.6
+0.1 [ − 1.8, 2.0]
61.1
PJ-7, So
39.3
42.7
38.6
− 0.8 [ − 3.3, 1.6]
61.1
PJ-7, Qw
41.5
44.2
43.6
+2.2 [0.0, 4.3]
61.1
PJ-Uns., DS
54.0
63.3
60.3
+6.3 [2.0, 11.0]
78.4
PJ-Uns., Qw
57.7
65.0
60.7
+3.0 [ − 1.3, 7.3]
78.4
BIRD, DS
30.3
28.8
26.5
− 3.8 [ − 6.8, − 0.7]
67.7
Appendix
Table 14: OAR with drafts from Llama-3.1-8B (8B), with the executors of each setting. Best: the most accurate fixed protocol, as in Table 3 . OAR: drafts from the executing model. Δ : 8B minus Best in points. Rec.: the share of multi-owner questions that the 8B draft recognizes, the same for every executor of a pool.
LLM agent routing selects models, tools, skills, or collaboration workflows for each task or step to balance capability, cost, latency, and reliability.
LLM analytics agents are evaluated on SQL syntax accuracy, but production failures look different: questions with two valid business definitions, questions the warehouse cannot answer, deprecated columns after a schema change, and queries that execute successfully while returning the wrong business number. No execution-match metric can score them. This paper introduces WarehouseReliabilityBench, 400 frozen tasks over two synthetic warehouses in which roughly half the correct responses are a clarification, an abstention or a refusal, with pinned denominators and a pre-registered paired bootstrap fixing each claim verb before the numbers existed. QueryProof, a 7B agent, uses rules derived from a semantic layer and physical catalog to determine its behaviour, and gates every answer on deterministic post-execution checks. On an 80-task synthetic test split evaluated once, QueryProof outperforms a direct-prompted 32B baseline by +0.237 [+0.112, +0.375] Business Truth Rate at 71.0% lower cost per correct answer; against a cost-matched few-shot baseline the accuracy gain holds but the cost difference does not resolve. This compares systems rather than model sizes: the 32B baseline receives none of the scaffolding. False success falls from 0.754 to 0.351 of returned answers, and no wrong number was returned on an answerable task (0 of 24), though 13 answers went to questions requiring clarification or abstention. Removing the routing layer changes little (0.562 against 0.537), so the result does not depend on escalation. Routing tuned on validation over-abstains on test, and the fitted confidence model loses to the heuristic it replaced. Resampling template families rather than tasks widens both accuracy intervals to include zero, so the effect's direction is better supported than its magnitude. The gain tracks the deterministic layer, though no component ablation was run.
Integrating unstructured data into relational database systems is increasingly important as demand grows for natural language querying and analysis. A semantic join, joining two tables under a natural-language predicate, can be evaluated with a large language model (LLM), but comparing every pair of tuples requires O(M x N) LLM invocations and is cost-prohibitive at scale. Existing systems reduce this cost but typically commit to a single fixed strategy (e.g., embedding similarity or one batched scheme) regardless of the data or the join predicate. We propose an LLM-agent-based decision pipeline that optimizes semantic joins by matching the execution strategy to the characteristics of the underlying tables. An LLM advisor routes each join to one of two strategies: a Cluster Join, which prunes candidates via unsupervised embedding clustering and sample-based filtering, or a Classifier strategy for predicates that reduce to a shared discrete label set. Across three diverse datasets (IMDb reviews, email contradictions, and Stack Overflow tags), the advisor consistently identifies the optimal execution strategy for each workload. This dynamic routing proves decisive: it outperforms adaptive block join (ABJ) by 20-33 F1 points across all datasets while consuming fewer tokens on two of the three, and achieves higher F1 scores than featurized-decomposition join (FDJ) at one to two orders of magnitude lower token cost.
Text2SQL agents powered by LLMs translate natural language intent into SQL by exploring the data system through tool calls before formulating the query. However, to ensure secure and scoped access, data systems construct environments with explicit API surfaces. We study and categorize these APIs exposed today as either coarse-grained or fine-grained and posit that choosing between them presents a fundamental tradeoff between cost-efficient exploration and accurate SQL generation. Most data systems expose fine-grained APIs, but this inadvertently disadvantages agents: they over-explore, incorporating irrelevant schema elements into their query formulation and produce inaccurate results. We argue that curbing over-exploration is key to the effective use of these API surfaces, and propose Sophrosyne, a data system environment that augments API responses with directives that guide the agent's exploration process. Initial results show that directives reduce over-exploration by 4.6x and boost accuracy by up to 12.4% (approx. 4 percentage points).