Truthful and Expected-Payment-Optimal Model Routing in Graph-Based Agentic Workflows
Organizations: Carnegie Mellon University · Foundations of Cooperative AI Lab (FOCAL) · Adelaide University · University of Oxford
Abstract
Assigning routine tasks to cheaper large language model (LLM) providers can reduce generation cost, but switching providers may require processing accumulated context again. Keeping dependent tasks with the same provider can instead reuse eligible context. Graph-based workflows therefore couple routing decisions across tasks. Independent providers may also privately know their real-time unit costs and strategically misreport them. We formulate this routing problem as a single-parameter procurement auction and propose STAR (Strategy-proof Topology-aware Agent Routing), which minimizes virtual-cost-weighted graph workloads. Its allocation rule and payments, computed by integrating workload over possible cost reports, make truthful reporting utility-maximizing regardless of other providers' reports and cover each truthful provider's execution cost. With independent cost distributions and non-decreasing virtual costs, STAR additionally minimizes the user's expected total payment to providers. Controlled synthetic experiments separate the execution-cost benefit of topology awareness from the payment benefit of virtual-cost optimization: the former grows with fan-out and transferred payload, while the latter increases gradually along the tested prior-shape heterogeneity path. A paired sensitivity study quantifies how payment savings vary with prior misspecification while strategy-proofness is preserved.
Figures & tables
| Prior profile | Reduction range | Positive cells |
|---|---|---|
| Uniform | 1.49%–3.34% | 2/24 |
| Heterogeneous mild | 10.23%–10.30% | 24/24 |
| Heterogeneous strong | 21.99%–31.48% | 24/24 |
| True cost distribution | Correct-prior Star reduction (95% CI) | Negative-direction error (95% CI) | Positive-direction error (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniform | 0.79% [0.31,1.25] | 0.05 | 0.85% [0.28,1.38] | 0.72% [0.26,1.15] |
| 0.1 | 0.71% [0.07,1.32] | 0.56% [0.10,0.97] | ||
| 0.2 | 0.34% [-0.54,1.16] | 0.20% [-0.31,0.69] | ||
| Heterogeneous power priors | 30.04% [27.88,32.21] | 0.05 | 30.01% [27.84,32.14] | 29.98% [27.79,32.09] |
| 0.1 | 30.15% [28.02,32.29] | 29.92% [27.76,32.03] | ||
| 0.2 | 30.16% [28.06,32.27] | 30.13% [27.93,32.23] |
| Control | Execution cost reduction | Paired 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Low payload (ratio 1) | 2.13% | [1.16%, 3.24%] |
| Higher payload (ratio 16) | 67.47% | [66.12%, 68.48%] |
| No cache advantage ( ) | 0.00% | [0.00%, 0.00%] |
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Tier | Base-cost anchors | Providers |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | 0.20, $0.30 | 3 |
| Tier 2 | 1.00, $1.50 | 3 |
| Tier 3 | 5.00, $7.50 | 3 |
| Setting | Role | Count | Difficulty | Nominal output (k) |
| S1 | Planner | 5 | 1 | 300 each |
| Writers | 15 (3 per stage) | 2 | 40 each | |
| Aggregator | 5 | 1 | 50 each | |
| Final Editor | 1 | 1 | 20 | |
| S2 | Scanner / Analyzer / Planner | 1 each | 1 / 2 / 3 | 3 / 5 / 8 |
| SpecGenerator | 1 | 1 | 350 |
| Workflow | Payment reduction | Paired 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| S1 | 1.44% | [0.14%, 2.72%] |
| S2 | 0.36% | [-0.39%, 1.13%] |
| S3 | 0.91% | [0.07%, 1.79%] |
| S4 | 0.92% | [0.11%, 1.71%] |
| Provider ID | Capability tier | Unit-cost range ($/million work units) | Uniform | Mild | Strong | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.50 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 1 | 1 | 0.10 | 0.80 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 2 | 2 | 0.25 | 1.40 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
| 3 | 2 | 0.35 | 1.10 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| 4 | 2 | 0.45 | 1.25 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 |
| Cell | Topology | Degree | Paired trials | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C01 | Fanout | 1 | 50 | |
| C02 | Fanout | 1 | 1.00 | 50 |
| C03 | Fanout | 10 | 50 | |
| C04 | Fanout | 10 | 1.00 | 50 |
| C05 | Fanout | 30 | 50 | |
| C06 | Fanout | 30 | 1.00 | 50 |
| Topology | Degree | Star –Raw payment | Paired 95% CI | Raw–Myopic execution | Paired 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fanout | 1 | 3.34% | [0.52%, 6.07%] | 1.77% | [0.57%, 3.31%] | |
| Fanout | 1 | 1.00 | 1.49% | [-0.36%, 3.41%] | 24.15% | [20.89%, 27.28%] |
| Fanout | 10 | 1.49% | [-0.44%, 3.49%] | 67.79% | [66.31%, 68.86%] | |
| Fanout | 10 | 1.00 | 1.49% | [-0.39%, 3.48%] | 87.84% | [87.16%, 88.34%] |
| Fanout | 30 | 1.49% | [-0.46%, 3.48%] | 84.60% | [83.79%, 85.19%] | |
| Fanout | 30 | 1.00 | 1.49% | [-0.37%, 3.41%] | 94.47% | [94.12%, 94.71%] |
| Topology | Degree | Star –Raw payment | Paired 95% CI | Raw–Myopic execution | Paired 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fanout | 1 | 10.30% | [3.26%, 16.70%] | 2.27% | [0.71%, 4.17%] | |
| Fanout | 1 | 1.00 | 10.23% | [3.42%, 16.73%] | 22.65% | [18.73%, 26.62%] |
| Fanout | 10 | 10.23% | [3.26%, 16.47%] | 67.75% | [66.33%, 68.85%] | |
| Fanout | 10 | 1.00 | 10.23% | [2.85%, 16.82%] | 87.92% | [87.29%, 88.35%] |
| Fanout | 30 | 10.23% | [3.45%, 16.98%] | 84.68% | [83.88%, 85.21%] | |
| Fanout | 30 | 1.00 | 10.23% | [3.25%, 16.81%] | 94.52% | [94.22%, 94.72%] |
| Topology | Degree | Star –Raw payment | Paired 95% CI | Raw–Myopic execution | Paired 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fanout | 1 | 21.99% | [14.04%, 29.82%] | 2.52% | [0.80%, 4.58%] | |
| Fanout | 1 | 1.00 | 31.48% | [21.92%, 40.29%] | 21.82% | [17.46%, 25.88%] |
| Fanout | 10 | 31.48% | [21.96%, 40.40%] | 65.32% | [62.29%, 67.52%] | |
| Fanout | 10 | 1.00 | 31.48% | [21.78%, 40.66%] | 86.63% | [84.98%, 87.72%] |
| Fanout | 30 | 31.48% | [21.78%, 40.41%] | 83.13% | [81.04%, 84.43%] | |
| Fanout | 30 | 1.00 | 31.48% | [21.60%, 40.12%] | 93.88% | [93.05%, 94.40%] |
| Prior profile | Raw graph-aware vs. Myopic execution reduction | Star vs. Raw-DSIC payment reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Uniform | ||
| Heterogeneous mild | ||
| Heterogeneous strong |
| Payment reduction | Paired 95% CI | Pair-reversal rate | Allocation-disagreement rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 2.11% | [1.11%, 3.10%] | 0.072 | 0.060 |
| 0.1 | 2.97% | [1.51%, 4.44%] | 0.072 | 0.090 |
| 0.2 | 4.71% | [2.58%, 6.78%] | 0.079 | 0.100 |
| 0.3 | 6.73% | [3.91%, 9.52%] | 0.089 | 0.140 |
| 0.4 | 8.96% | [5.79%, 12.10%] | 0.100 | 0.210 |
| 0.5 | 11.35% | [7.86%, 14.93%] | 0.115 | 0.250 |
| Degree | Absolute saving ($) | Reduction |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0.276 | 27.22% |
| 20 | 0.322 | 27.22% |
| 100 | 0.687 | 27.22% |
| Structural cell | Treatment [95% CI] | Control [95% CI] | Treatment–control [95% CI] | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree-100 fan-out | 0.25 | 0.000% [0.000%, 0.000%] | 0.000% [0.000%, 0.000%] | 0.000% [0.000%, 0.000%] | No |
| Degree-100 fan-out | 0.50 | 0.096% [-1.718%, 1.804%] | -0.323% [-2.167%, 1.088%] | 0.419% [-0.972%, 1.723%] | No |
| Degree-100 fan-out | 1.00 | 2.538% [-0.658%, 5.790%] | 1.658% [-0.545%, 4.082%] | 0.879% [-2.050%, 3.744%] | No |
| S4 cached input | 0.25 | 0.005% [0.000%, 0.012%] | 0.000% [0.000%, 0.000%] | 0.005% [0.000%, 0.012%] | No |
| S4 cached input | 0.50 | 0.256% [-0.919%, 1.429%] | -0.316% [-1.393%, 0.595%] | 0.572% [-0.387%, 1.477%] | No |
| S4 cached input | 1.00 | 3.385% [0.973%, 5.752%] | 1.748% [-0.232%, 3.741%] | 1.637% [-0.271%, 3.602%] | No |
| True prior | Scoring condition | (95% CI) | Allocation disagreement | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniform | Correct prior | 0.939 | 0.686 | 0.254 | +0.0000 [+0.0000,+0.0000] | 0.0% |
| Uniform | 0.944 | 0.692 | 0.252 | +0.0043 [-0.0012,+0.0096] | 7.0% | |
| Uniform | 0.940 | 0.688 | 0.252 | +0.0008 [-0.0019,+0.0035] | 3.5% | |
| Uniform | 0.939 | 0.686 | 0.253 | -0.0005 [-0.0019,+0.0008] | 1.0% | |
| Uniform | 0.940 | 0.685 | 0.255 | +0.0007 [-0.0006,+0.0020] | 1.9% | |
| Uniform | 0.942 | 0.685 | 0.256 | +0.0023 [-0.0002,+0.0047] | 3.4% |
| Completed instances | Task-assignment time (seconds) | All-provider payment time (seconds) | Maximum total time (seconds) | |
| 8 | 12/12 | 0.069 | 0.118 | 0.285 |
| 32 | 12/12 | 0.094 | 0.219 | 0.512 |
| 64 | 12/12 | 0.134 | 0.361 | 0.767 |
| family | solved | allocation (s) | payments (s) | peak RSS (MiB) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| chain | 8 | 3 | 3/3 | 0.124 | 0.120 | 183.3 |
| chain | 8 | 5 | 3/3 | 0.067 | 0.115 | 182.0 |
| chain | 32 | 3 | 3/3 | 0.078 | 0.214 | 183.7 |
| chain | 32 | 5 | 3/3 | 0.104 | 0.262 | 187.2 |
| chain | 64 | 3 | 3/3 | 0.113 | 0.278 | 187.8 |
| chain | 64 | 5 | 3/3 | 0.194 | 0.421 | 268.9 |
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