Workflow Automation and Optimization

The goal of schema integration is, given a set of input schemata or tables, to derive a global, unified schema that is able to represent the concepts, attributes, and relationships of all input tables in a coherent fashion. This paper presents SINT-Flow, a schema integration framework composed of five LLM-based operators that can be combined into workflows to perform fully automated, end-to-end schema integration. In contrast to existing approaches, SINT-Flow can process denormalized source tables that contain attributes describing multiple entity types. During the schema integration process, these tables are decomposed into separate entity-specific relations. To evaluate SINT-Flow, we introduce SINT-Bench, a schema integration benchmark comprising 10 schema integration tasks consisting of altogether 93 relational tables, including tables that describe multiple types of entities. We evaluate SINT-Flow using GPT-5.2 as well as the open-weight model Qwen-3.6-27B as alternative backbone models. Using these models, SINT-Flow achieves F1 scores of at least 96% for entity-type detection, 85% for attribute detection, and 83% for schema mapping. Furthermore, we perform an ablation study to prove the utility of the applied self-consistency strategy as well as the inclusion of a review loop into the schema matching operator.

Modern coding agents are usually evaluated by whether they eventually produce a correct patch, but patch generation depends on an earlier context-acquisition stage: finding the repository files needed for the task. We introduce Agent Retrieval Bench, a file-level benchmark for this upstream retrieval problem. Samples are built from real coding-workflow signals and evaluated against frozen base-commit repositories, with relevance defined by what an agent needs next rather than direct query-file semantic similarity. The benchmark covers four positive-retrieval tasks: code2test, comment2context, trace2code, and edit2ripple; a fifth subset evaluates selective retrieval using natural evidence-backed no-gold cases and counterfactual wrong-repository controls. Agent Retrieval Bench contains 427 samples across 25 repositories: 345 positive examples, 50 natural no-gold examples, and 32 counterfactual controls. The corpus includes 308 base-commit snapshots, 392,000 files, and 7.9 million chunks. We evaluate lexical retrieval, RepoMap, open-source embeddings, selective abstention, and logged agent context selection. No single retrieval family dominates: Qwen3-Embedding-4B has the best sample-weighted MRR on positive samples, Qwen3-Embedding-8B the best Recall@20, and RepoMap the best budgeted context yield at 8K tokens, with task-level winners differing substantially. Selective thresholds calibrated with counterfactual controls do not improve selective success on natural no-gold cases, revealing a calibration gap. Logged trajectories also miss every gold file on 27-35 percent of samples. A controlled seed-intervention pilot finds that retrieval-derived initial context yields higher file F1 with less post-seed exploration than random non-gold context, while oracle gold context shows substantial remaining headroom.

Existing evaluations of large language models cover knowledge, reasoning, coding, and tool use, but they rarely treat a verifiable deliverable produced within a constrained workflow as the unit of evaluation. We introduce SQBench, a benchmark for evaluating production-oriented task delivery by language-model agents. SQBench v1.0 contains 220 standardized tasks organized into L1 atomic capabilities, L2 composite skills, and L3 business scenarios. Each task requires an agent to process input assets, use available tools, and produce an explicitly specified deliverable. The evaluation first computes functional Completion and then derives Risk Penalty and Performance from independently evidenced triggers in a 10D Risk Matrix. A Strict Pass requires Completion = 1 and Risk Penalty = 0. We evaluate 27 model configurations under a common protocol, with one run per configuration-task pair. The highest prespecified Weighted Pass@1 is 60.5%. Mean Strict Pass@1 on L3 is 18.5%, and every configuration performs worse on L3 than on both L1 and L2, indicating that delivery under domain constraints is a shared weakness within the current task set. Of 2,348 results with Completion = 1, 113 (4.8%) fail the Strict Pass criterion because of risks such as unverifiable citations, inappropriate resource use, or format violations. These results show that functional completion alone does not fully characterize delivery quality and that risk determinations should be reported separately.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for code generation, yet their security behavior in realistic development workflows remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often rely on explicitly specified security requirements, failing to capture real-world scenarios where prompts are frequently ambiguous or incomplete. In this paper, we adopt a developer-centric perspective and identify three representative risk scenarios that commonly lead to security vulnerabilities in LLM-generated code: Ambiguous Requirements, Under-Specified Operational Context, and Security--Functionality Conflict. Based on these scenarios, we construct a large-scale benchmark comprising 2,700 test cases, enabling fine-grained evaluation of LLM security under realistic conditions. Extensive evaluation of eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that all models exhibit average vulnerability rates exceeding 56% across risk scenarios. We further demonstrate that security-aware prompting can substantially mitigate these risks, achieving up to 45% improvement.

In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.

We present a structured large-language-model-driven workflow for automated multi-variable control design from dynamic process models. The workflow decomposes the design task into constrained code-generation steps: plant-interface construction, normalization, manipulated-variable controlled-variable (MV-CV) pairing, controller specification, closed loop simulation, scenario generation, performance evaluation and Bayesian-optimization (BO) based tuning. Generated artifacts are executed and validated before downstream tasks proceed, and failed artifacts are repaired using validation feedback. The proposed approach is demonstrated on a nonlinear gas-preheater benchmark with coupled pressure and temperature dynamics. The generated workflow produces a physically consistent decentralized PI (proportional-integral) feedback-feedforward control structure and an executable tuning environment. Bayesian optimization reduces the closed loop performance objective, which aggregates set-point tracking and disturbance-rejection errors for the controlled variables, by approximately 26.5% relative to the initial controller generated by the workflow, mainly through improved pressure-loop transient performance. This figure quantifies the automated tuning stage rather than a comparison against a manually designed controller. The results demonstrate the feasibility of using structured large-language-model-based code generation to construct executable control-design workflows, while also highlighting the need for broader validation on larger plantwide-control benchmarks.

Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources. However, existing benchmarks primarily emphasize general-domain retrieval or static scientific question answering, and therefore fail to assess key capabilities required in realistic scientific research workflows. We introduce SciExplore, a benchmark designed to evaluate scientific information-seeking and reasoning capabilities of LLMs and agents. SciExplore comprises four task types covering 103 expert-curated tasks across more than ten scientific disciplines: scientific database navigation, ambiguous literature retrieval, missing reference completion, and cross-source structured knowledge synthesis, which probe progressively higher-level abilities from entity-level reasoning and document-level identification to evidence-level grounding and domain-level synthesis. We evaluate over ten state-of-the-art LLMs and autonomous agents on SciExplore, revealing substantial performance gaps with performance degrading sharply as task complexity increases and extremely low accuracy on the most challenging structured synthesis tasks. These results highlight significant limitations of current models and agents in realistic scientific information-seeking scenarios.

We introduce ARBIGRAPH, a benchmark generator for evaluating whether tool-assisted language agents can retain, update, compose, and discard task-relevant context across extended reasoning workflows. ARBIGRAPH represents each task as a natural-language problem with an executable Python solver, and composes tasks through typed intermediate states, instantiated here as scalar and list values. This design enables controllable task graphs whose length, dependency structure, distractor count, and value type can be varied while preserving exact automatic verification. We instantiate ARBIGRAPH with math, GSM-style word-problems, and Python-tracing task categories, and evaluate a Qwen3.5-27B tool-assisted agent across four topologies. The results show high accuracy on isolated tasks but substantial degradation on more complex dependent tasks: accuracy drops by up to 33.3% on branching chains of dependent math tasks. This shows that ARBIGRAPH exposes failures that are not visible from single-task evaluation alone. Our code, generated datasets, and evaluation results are available at https://github.com/pavelgolikov/ArbiGraph.git

This paper is a practitioner guide to graph-based workflow pathways for long-running, stateful, multi-step generative AI systems in business processes. Rather than treating LangGraph, a low-level orchestration framework for stateful agents, as a model-quality benchmark target, we present three executable recipes -- SQL analytics with repair loops, agentic retrieval-augmented generation with evidence gating, and human-in-the-loop policy review with interrupt and checkpoint recovery -- to show how typed state, conditional routing, deterministic tools, retries, interrupts, checkpoints, and traces fit together. LangGraph is positioned by workflow-complexity fit, not as a universal default: simpler ReAct-style or plain SDK loops may be better for basic tool use, schema-first tools for structured extraction and validation, and DSPy when prompt or program optimization is the main goal. Each recipe explains when LangGraph is worth the extra structure and which implementation patterns make routes, pauses, and audit trails explicit product behavior rather than hidden prompt logic.

Large language model (LLM) agents are extending electronic design automation (EDA) beyond static RTL generation toward long-horizon, tool-interactive workflows. Yet it remains unclear whether general-purpose coding agents, even with domain-specific EDA skills, can reliably execute an end-to-end RTL-to-GDS flow encompassing synthesis, physical implementation, and engineering change order (ECO) optimization. We evaluate AI agents on a PicoRV32 RTL-to-GDS flow using commercial EDA tools under two timing targets. Their performance is assessed using end-to-end design score, stage completion, and Token ROI, a cost-efficiency metric relating design quality to runtime and cost. Comparing three agent architectures and four foundation models, we derive three practical lessons. First, domain-specific skills improve agents' understanding of individual subtasks but do not ensure reliable completion of a long-horizon EDA flow. Second, agents that achieve similar design progress can still differ by up to 141 times in Token ROI, revealing substantial differences in runtime and cost efficiency. Third, low-level tool-interface mismatches are a major source of physical design failures, particularly when Tcl commands depend on the tool version or execution mode. These results suggest that robust Agentic EDA requires not only stronger models but also structured tool interfaces, persistent design context, controlled execution, and process-level evaluation.

Designing effective Lean proof agents is a central challenge in formal mathematical reasoning. Beyond building stronger provers, recent work emphasizes the workflow around Lean: how an agent decomposes proof obligations, uses tools and compiler feedback, diagnoses failures, repairs proofs, and maintains structured proof context. Motivated by code-level self-evolving agents, we study whether such workflows can be evolved rather than hand-designed. We present a self-evolving Lean proof agent in which a small fixed, trusted runtime wraps a fully mutable workspace: the proof workflow, prompts, and tools. Unlike most self-evolving systems, which optimize against a fixed external benchmark, our system coevolves the agent and its benchmark. Between generations, the highest-scoring agent (the champion) revises the active task distribution through a mastery-throttled curriculum update that introduces harder proof obligations only after the current level is mastered, and a single-anchor recalibration re-runs the champion on the updated benchmark to keep scores comparable as difficulty rises. All evolution stays inside a Lean-grounded verification loop: however the agent rewrites itself, a success counts only when its behavior yields Lean-verified proofs under a trusted snapshot, and each attempt must emit a machine-readable, Lean-grounded proof context whose representation may evolve but whose groundedness is enforced. We run the coevolving trajectory and a fixed-benchmark baseline for 15 active generations and compare them on a held-out miniF2F test split. The best coevolving agent reaches a 45.1% held-out solve rate, versus 12.7% for the seed and 32.0% for the best fixed-benchmark agent, showing that verifier-grounded self-evolution can improve Lean proof workflows under a coevolving benchmark.

As generative AI is increasingly applied to automate multi-step and high-stake workflows, human judgment and involvement remain essential for ensuring the quality of AI-generated outputs. In practice, while it is desirable for human experts to provide oversight on AI regularly, often by reviewing intermediate outputs, giving feedback, making corrections, and steering subsequent steps, such oversight is constrained by the time and resources that humans can afford. This creates a tension between the need for human oversight and AI's efficiency in delivering more output with less intervention. An important but underexplored question, then, is how to optimally engage humans in human-AI coworking. This work was originally motivated by our empirical observation that in long AI workflows, human oversight often improves user satisfaction while reducing unnecessary rework and token consumption. From there, we formulate the problem of where to place oversight stages in human-AI coworking. Under reasonable assumptions, we then develop the nonuniformity principle, which states that the optimal schedule places oversight stages with non-decreasing gaps along the workflow. We empirically validate this principle in two common AI agent workflows: writing literature reviews and constructing websites.

Tool-augmented language-model agents execute multi-step workflows over external systems, resolving an entity once and then acting on it across subsequent steps. Prior work shows that in single-step actions, agents select the correct tool but bind it to the wrong entity 24-26% of the time. We study what happens to entity bindings over time: do they stay correct, silently drift to a different entity, or, if wrong from the start, propagate and compound? We formalize binding drift (correct at step 1, wrong later) as distinct from error propagation (wrong at step 1, carried forward), and score them on disjoint workflow sets so the two cannot be conflated. In a controlled multi-step testbed (200 workflows, 580 entity-binding-scored steps, four enterprise domains, eight model backends spanning small to frontier), we find: (1) under controlled error injection, an entity lock (the intuitive "persist the first binding" fix) amplifies wrong actions from 907 to 2,746 (3.0x; bootstrap 95% CI [2.8, 3.3]), because it faithfully carries the seeded wrong entity into every later step; (2) the amplification reaches 8.5x on the most affected model (Claude Opus 4.5); (3) a practical LLM-based re-verifier (a single cheap second model call re-reading the original instruction) reduces wrong actions by 79% (0.21x; CI [0.18, 0.25]), closing the gap to within 1 percentage point of an oracle upper-bound (0.20x); and (4) in the natural (non-injected) setting, baseline agents drift on 18% of eligible workflows, with the per-step error rate rising across steps. Persistence and re-verification are not interchangeable: a defense that eliminates drift can worsen propagation, and a practical re-verifier nearly matches oracle recovery.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used for complex information-extraction tasks, yet it remains unclear whether agentic components such as reflection and memory lead to observable and controllable improvements over fixed LLM workflows. We study this question through conference-paper dataset extraction, where a system must identify datasets mentioned in scholarly PDFs and produce structured records. We compare a fixed workflow baseline with reflective agent variants and specify an optimized agent condition (S2) that extends the same task with richer PDF tools and dynamic tool selection. Our evaluation emphasizes process-level behavior--including tool execution, retries, reflection, memory use, runtime, and failure recovery--while treating extraction coverage and field completeness as secondary outcome measures. The paper characterizes when agentic mechanisms change system behavior, whether these changes improve task completion, and how the observed failure modes motivate an optimized agent design under the same evaluation harness.

Addressing a structural-engineering request requires more than a single answer; it requires a chain of interdependent artifacts: interpreted requirements, a computable model, validation records, solver outputs, code-check records, and a final report. Evaluations centered on question answering or script generation rarely verify this complete evidence chain and may therefore reward fluent outputs even when the underlying engineering workflow is incomplete, internally inconsistent, or non-executable. To address this limitation, we present StructureClaw, an artifact-centered workbench in which LLM agents operate through governed engineering skills, typed tools, shared artifact state, and local analysis backends. We also introduce StructureClaw-Bench, an executable benchmark of 150 controlled scenarios spanning standard workflow execution, interactive robustness, and multimodal structural-model reconstruction. A scenario succeeds only when all required artifact- and execution-level assertions pass in a single run. Across ten agent-model configurations, each evaluated on the same 50 standard cases, the average Success Rate rises from 56.8% with the generic-skill baseline to 88.6% with the full automatic workflow. The interactive and multimodal evaluations identify two prominent remaining challenges: safe handling of invalid numerical inputs and fixture-consistent reconstruction of structural models. These findings show that artifact-centered evaluation can expose workflow-level failures that are difficult to identify from final responses alone, providing a more rigorous basis for evaluating and improving structural-engineering agents. The code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/structureclaw/structureclaw.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have accelerated the adoption of software development agents, now widely available as Integrated Development Environment (IDE) extensions and standalone applications. While these agents are typically general-purpose, it remains unclear whether specialist agents justify their additional development effort. We investigate this question in the context of business process automation, focusing on the transformation of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) diagrams into executable agentic workflows. Since BPMN specifies explicit control-flow semantics, we focus on deterministic workflows in which a fixed process model and inputs uniquely determine the executed path. We introduce a specialist workflow for this task and compare it against generalist agents such as Roo and Cline. Our results show that the specialist solution produces agents that outperform generalist baselines by approximately 9-20 percentage points in tool-use exactness, 2-4x in penalty-adjusted latency, and 3x fewer tool-call errors, while reducing generation token cost by over 95% and eliminating repair iterations. We also find that generalist agents generate code inconsistently in both functionality and quality, limiting their suitability for industrial settings where reliability and maintainability are essential.

Trustworthy deployment of LLM-based agents in software systems requires evaluating how they perform on application-specific workflows, with enough granularity to localize where they succeed and fail. Yet existing agent evaluation mechanisms are limited: benchmarks have low construct validity for application-specific workflows and environments, and replica evaluation environments are expensive and prone to drift. We propose Copy-on-Write (CoW) Scoring, a framework that evaluates agent operations directly within application environments using a PostgreSQL-level Copy-on-Write mechanism to isolate agent writes. CoW Scoring produces session- and operation-level scores that highlight where agents' database write operations succeed and fail in a given application environment, enabling inexpensive evaluation and iteration on agent harnesses and tool surfaces. We demonstrate the framework on Plane, an open-source project-management platform, where analysis surfaced specific issues in the tool surface, and corresponding fixes produced measurable improvements on affected models. Python library: https://github.com/trail-ml/agent-cow-python

While generative AI has unlocked new opportunities for 3D content creation, current workflows often rely on multiple regenerations, which provides limited control and unpredictable outcomes. We present Compos3D, a system that introduces a compositional workflow for generative 3D modeling through remixing. Instead of repeatedly regenerating models, users generate multiple candidates from text or image prompts, select parts of interest via 2D image regions or 3D mesh segments, and assemble them into a coherent design. The system synthesizes these compositions into a refined 3D model, preserving high-level intent while resolving low-level geometry. To evaluate this approach, we conducted a controlled user study comparing remixing and regeneration workflows across both 2D and 3D modalities. Results show that the remixing workflow provides participants with greater creative control, stronger alignment with their intent, and higher satisfaction. We conclude with design recommendations for future AI-assisted 3D modeling workflows.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) have enabled increasingly capable digital agents for computer use. However, real-world tasks are often long-horizon and involve evolving contexts containing accumulated observations, intermediate edits, failed attempts, and partially completed executions. Existing agents typically operate over raw interaction history, making task progress difficult to interpret, verify, and recover, which ultimately limits reliable long-horizon execution. In this paper, we argue that addressing this challenge requires explicitly structuring both the agent's state and workflow around a unified causal representation of task progress. We present \textbf{StructAgent}, a state-centered framework that introduces a unified state for maintaining compact, verifiable task progress and a structured workflow that regulates progress through verifier-backed state transitions. Building on this design, StructAgent further enables explicit progress checkpointing, evidence-driven task completion, targeted failure recovery, and tool-supported execution, while ensuring that all progress updates remain grounded in verification. Extensive experiments demonstrate that StructAgent consistently improves a wide range of LLM and VLM backbones on long-horizon computer-use tasks. On OSWorld-Verified, it improves Qwen3.5-9B from 27.0% to 46.9% success rate and Qwen3.5-27B from 31.6% to 62.2%, while achieving a new open-source state of the art of 78.9% with MiniMax-M3. Moreover, the same framework generalizes beyond desktop environments to Minecraft, demonstrating the generality of our design.

The rapid expansion of capabilities in Large Language Model (LLM) agents has exposed a critical architectural bottleneck: when agents are given access to a flat, monolithic registry of tools, the model must evaluate hundreds or thousands of options simultaneously. This leads to decision-space explosion, context window saturation, and degraded routing accuracy. To address these limitations, this paper presents a hierarchical, skill-based architecture for agentic orchestration. Capabilities are organized as a rooted tree where internal nodes make routing decisions and leaf nodes execute deterministic tasks. The runtime enforces a single-step execution loop governed by a Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) stack, giving the agent a form of memory akin to a Pushdown Automaton, therefore enabling it to track nested execution contexts and resume deterministically from any depth. Capability discovery follows a manifest-driven, lazy-loading protocol: only the immediate children of the active node are loaded, so memory and prompt costs scale with the explored path rather than the global registry. By replacing global memory with localized stack frames, the architecture prevents outputs from one execution branch from leaking into another, establishing the isolation guarantees required for deployment in regulated enterprise environments. We also discuss UPI Help, an AI-powered digital payments support product, as a motivating production deployment context. We provide a mathematical formalization of the orchestration state, detailed algorithmic analysis of the execution loop, and controlled benchmarks comparing flat and hierarchical routing under increasing tool catalogs, multi-step workflow pressure, and visible schema-token exposure per LLM call.

LLMs are now proposed for fraud detection, scam investigation, content moderation, and other trust-and-safety workflows. Much of the public literature still evaluates them as models, with less attention to their behavior as components in operational pipelines. This creates a practical evidence question: what would justify placing an LLM inside a live workflow with latency, cost, escalation, human-review, and adversarial-risk constraints? We address this question through a fraud-first survey of deployment evidence. We code 49 operationally relevant sources on LLM use in fraud detection, investigation support, content moderation, and cross-cutting robustness (18 fraud, 14 moderation, 17 cross-cutting), supplemented by 15 contextual references that establish the survey boundaries. These sources include systems, benchmarks, frameworks, and deployment-relevant surveys, not 49 production deployments. The main finding is an evidence imbalance. Fraud supplies the largest task-specific portion of the coded corpus. The moderation papers, however, include more explicit public evidence on latency, cost, governance, and fairness. Among the 18 fraud and investigation sources, none report clean per-decision latency, per-decision dollar cost, or calibration evidence; most report offline task performance, retrieval gains, or case-study accuracy instead. The survey contributes a role-and-evidence organizing frame, FORTE, for locating LLMs as classifiers, retrieval interfaces, explanation generators, reviewer assistants, agents, feature extractors, or escalation components. It also contributes a minimum deployment-evidence checklist covering latency budget, cost per decision, decision threshold, explanation integrity, and adversarial pressure. The resulting agenda identifies studies needed to support deployment claims for LLM-based fraud and trust-and-safety work.

We present a language-model forecasting system for merger arbitrage, a specialized high-stakes financial setting in which the task is to predict the outcome of announced M&A deals. Unlike prior work on judgmental forecasting with LLMs, which has focused on broad mixed-topic benchmarks and short context such as news snippets, we study a setting that requires long-context reasoning over hundreds of pages of technical documents. Our system combines expert-guided context engineering with finetuning on hindsight-guided reasoning traces derived from historical deals. Given an announced deal, it outputs a probability distribution over three mutually exclusive outcomes: closing at announced terms, a higher bid, or deal termination. On an out-of-sample set of more than 400 large deals spanning 42 countries, our finetuned system achieves the best performance of any method we evaluate, reducing class-balanced Brier score to 0.151. This is 24% below calibrated market-implied probabilities, 19% below XGBoost, and 25-42% below frontier language models. These results, together with ablation studies, show that LLM-based forecasting can succeed in specialized, long-context financial workflows, with hindsight-based supervision and expert-designed context playing a critical role.

Mathematical diagrams play a crucial role in K 12 education, both as problem components and as scaffolding for student comprehension. However, current AI tools, including Large Language Models (LLMs), struggle to reliably generate accurate and pedagogically sound visual diagrams, even when provided with detailed descriptions. A significant gap therefore remains in the reliable generation of diagrams for middle school mathematics. To address this, we introduce an agentic workflow that enables LLM agents to evaluate the quality of generated visuals and use this feedback to iteratively improve their outputs. This self improvement loop aims to enhance the accuracy and educational appropriateness of AI generated diagrams. Our research investigates two questions. First, can LLMs accurately generate quality assurance questions for a visual aid given specific criteria for visual quality? Second, given valid quality assurance questions, can Vision Language Models effectively evaluate generated K 12 visual aids and use the resulting feedback to improve them iteratively? We conduct an exploratory evaluation of our agentic workflow and identify key areas for improvement, including stronger spatial reasoning and more comprehensive coverage of diagram features in the generated quality assurance questions. Our results provide preliminary evidence that this approach can improve the reliability and educational value of AI generated mathematical diagrams.

Large language model (LLM) applications increasingly use explicit workflows for tool use, retrieval, branching, checkpointing, and human approval. Existing workflow systems already address many execution concerns. This paper proposes a Lisp-inspired but language-independent conceptual model: symbolic forms, object identity, and live-image thinking are used as explanatory lenses, not implementation commitments. In this model, workflow definitions, workflow instances, inference records, context snapshots, and dependency relations are represented as persistent knowledge objects in a shared knowledge substrate. Its central semantic distinction is between derive and infer: derive is deterministic computation over available state; infer is mediated LLM judgment under declared context and executor-controlled capability policy. The result is a preliminary conceptual account of semantic persistence: workflows do not merely produce knowledge and leave traces, but can themselves be represented as inspectable, resumable, and reviewable knowledge objects, while formal transition semantics remain future work.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to reshape actuarial practice, particularly in domains that require reasoning over unstructured documents, heterogeneous data sources, and regulated decision workflows. Actuaries now face a design space that ranges from traditional rule-based automation to large language models (LLMs), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and multi-agent agentic'' systems that plan, retrieve, call tools, and reflect. This paper examines how these emerging architectures can support actuarial priorities such as transparency, auditability, and human-in-the-loop governance, with a focus on straight-through decision processes. To make these ideas concrete, we develop and analyze an agentic AI framework for straight-through underwriting of small commercial Business Owner Policies (BOPs). We construct a synthetic but realistic experimental environment and compare three underwriting pipelines: (i) a single-LLM baseline, (ii) a naive RAG system, and (iii) a multi-agent Agentic RAG'' pipeline that combines targeted retrieval, third-party data checks, and explicit multi-step rule evaluation. The agentic system performs best overall, with the largest gains in multi-step and missing-information scenarios, where structured retrieval and reflection help the model avoid unsupported straight-through decisions.

AI agents deployed for IT operations are typically permanent cost centers because every execution requires full LLM inference, even for previously solved problems. This paper introduces progressive crystallization, a lifecycle that treats agent exploration as a discovery mechanism rather than a permanent execution model. It defines a three-stage execution taxonomy, from fully agent-orchestrated to hybrid to fully deterministic workflows, together with an evidence-based promotion mechanism that converts repeatedly validated agent behaviors into cheaper and more reproducible deterministic workflows, while automatically demoting workflows that regress. Evaluated on a production cloud networking AIOps system processing tens of thousands of incidents per month, the approach increased deterministic execution from 0% to 45% over eight months, reduced per-incident agent costs by more than 70% despite doubling incident volume, and improved safety through greater reproducibility and auditability. The paper also presents the execution taxonomy, promotion and demotion criteria, trace extraction methodology, economic model, safety considerations, and discusses limitations and threats to validity.

We present SPL (Structured Prompt Language), a declarative language that composes deterministic and probabilistic computation modes in a single specification. While existing frameworks separate these -- orchestration systems (AutoGen, CrewAI, LangGraph) for LLM calls, symbolic tools (SymPy, SageMath, Lean) for computation -- SPL unifies them. It provides GENERATE/EVALUATE for probabilistic computation and SOLVE/ASSERT for deterministic computation, sharing syntax, variable bindings, and runtime routing. A .spl specification runs unchanged across local nodes (Ollama), cloud APIs (OpenRouter, Anthropic), and distributed grids (Momagrid), with model and verifier selection deferred to invocation time. We validate SPL through an extensive 78-recipe cookbook and a controlled 1,200-run experiment (10 models x 20 problems x 2 arms x 3 repetitions; the 20 problems span 6 difficulty tiers). The solver arm achieves 82-93% machine-verified correctness (sonnet-4-6: 85%, gemma4:e2b: 93%) while the LLM-only arm measures output production without mathematical verification, making the comparison one of verified correctness against unverified fluency. A backend difficulty gradient emerges (SymPy 78%, Sage 54%), and the dominant failure mode is solver_error (kernel-rejected expressions), not format non-compliance.

CI/CD workflows have become executable operational policy: they decide what gets built, tested, released, and deployed, and they mediate how maintainers interact with delivery infrastructure. That makes them an important measurement point for cyber-systems engineering. Recent large language model (LLM) work shows that workflow stages can be recognized directly from configuration files, but stage labels alone do not tell us whether a workflow is brittle, unusual for its ecosystem, or worth revising first. We present an LLM-based CI/CD analysis pipeline that combines repository enrichment, anti-pattern detection, stage mining, and recommendation generation over a large GitHub corpus. Starting from 59,550 repositories with at least 1,000 stars, we identify 34,225 projects with CI/CD and collect 127,559 configuration files. Across 75,201 analyzed workflows, the anti-pattern detector reports 434,769 findings, dominated by reliability and maintainability issues. Across 59,906 configurations, stage usage differs significantly by language ($χ^2 = 4168.88$, $p < 0.001$, Cramer's $V = 0.063$), and domain analysis shows distinct operational profiles, including higher release and cache usage in mobile projects. For repository-level recommendation generation, few-shot prompting performs best overall, averaging 8.25 recommendations per repository with 96.1% YAML-valid snippets. Taken together, the results argue for CI/CD observability that combines diagnosis, context, and human review rather than treating workflow mining as a stage-classification problem alone.

Enterprise artificial intelligence is moving from experimentation into operational workflows. Early programs focused on model access and retrieval-augmented generation, but enterprises are now beginning to deploy agents that plan, retrieve, remember, call tools, update systems, and coordinate work across applications. This changes the evaluation problem. Leaders are no longer asking only whether an answer is accurate or fluent. They need to know who authorized an action, which policy applied, whether evidence was current, whether memory was valid, whether a tool call was permitted, whether the decision can be replayed, and whether the agent can be stopped before it creates business impact. This paper introduces CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI. CAGE-1 is an evaluation framework for deciding whether enterprise agents are ready for deployment. It evaluates authority, policy enforcement, retrieval quality, memory integrity, tool safety, auditability, human oversight, conflict handling, safe failure, Prebind Assurance, operational readiness, and business fitness. CAGE-1 introduces Prebind Assurance to describe the evaluated ability to prove that an agentic action is controlled before it becomes binding, effective, or operationally consequential. The framework tests whether a proposed action is admitted, held, narrowed, refused, escalated, quarantined, or made non-effective before protected consequence forms.

Agentic AI applications form an emerging serving workload in which a request creates a workflow: a directed acyclic graph of LLM and tool calls that exposes per-node model choices and optional quality operators such as verifiers. This workload falls between two existing layers. Model-serving engines execute individual calls efficiently but cannot see workflow structure, while agent frameworks fix the workflow but cannot see backend load, so neither jointly chooses each node's model, verifier, and backend under serving-time conditions. We present Dyserve, a workflow-aware serving layer that fills this gap. Dyserve compiles each workflow's per-node model and verifier choices in one integer linear program (ILP) over a heterogeneous backend pool, priced by skill-conditioned offline profiles that transfer across workflows. This couples with hardware entering only through per-model throughput sweeps, and is weighted to concentrate strong models and verification on the nodes whose errors propagate the furthest. Because no single latency-quality preference fits every workload mix, Dyserve pre-solves the program at several pressure levels at admission and shifts a workflow's uncommitted suffix among these strategies under load, keeping the solver off the load-shift path; a failed tool call triggers a one-time residual re-solve that preserves committed work.

Agents are increasingly used to construct workflows and assist humans in completing recurring tasks more efficiently. As these workflows become repeated and domain-specific, agent memory and reusable skills become increasingly important: agents should be able to recall workflow patterns, execution constraints, and user preferences from previous runs. We study this problem in workflow-based image generation and introduce COMFYCLAW, an agentic skill evolution harness for controlling ComfyUI workflows. COMFYCLAW formulates workflow construction as typed graph editing, exposes tools organized by construction stage, automatically reverts invalid edits, and uses a region-level vision-language model (VLM) verifier to translate visual failures into actionable repair suggestions. The framework further evolves a progressively disclosed skill library, where trajectories, execution errors, and verifier feedback from previous runs are distilled into reusable Agent Skills. Across four benchmark splits, three agent models, and two image backbones, COMFYCLAW achieves the best average image-generation evaluation score across all six agent configurations, outperforming a verifier-only baseline without skill evolution. Human annotations further show that annotators prefer COMFYCLAW over variants without skill evolution. Our results suggest that skill evolution is an effective mechanism for improving agent reliability and performance in recurring visual workflow construction.

Large language models are trained to predict the next token, not to act inside a specific API. In niche enterprise SaaS workflows -- where success means hitting the right endpoint with the right nested arguments in the right order -- this objective mismatch shows up as silent failures: dropped required fields, hallucinated tools, or early stops after a single read. We ask whether Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), applied directly in the target environment, closes the gap. As a proof of concept we build a suite of five synthetic environments emulating the Jira REST v3 and Confluence v2 APIs at schema fidelity; rewards are computed entirely from the tool-call trace, with no live API, no learned judge, and no human label in the loop. Scoring prompted Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3.5-4B on the same checkers that drive GRPO training, we find that on the four scenarios whose rewards are non-degenerate the RL-trained policy lifts average reward from a 4B-baseline range of 0.35--0.92 to 0.95--1.00, with the largest single gain on Confluence page creation ($0.35 \rightarrow 1.00$). We position this as a preliminary step toward outcome-optimised small models for niche enterprise APIs, and foreground two limitations a workshop reader should weigh: hand-crafting verifiable rewards does not scale beyond the handful of endpoints reported here, and one of our five scenarios (ticket-transition) has a saturating reward shape that the prompted 4B already maxes out.

Visual analytics (VA) plays an increasingly important role in supporting machine learning (ML) workflows. In the field of visualization, such approaches and techniques are referred to as VIS4ML. While ML models are mostly learned automatically, the corresponding ML workflows receive a variety of human inputs, such as data labelling, feature engineering, model architecture designing, hyper-parameter tuning, and so on. In this work, we surveyed over 200 VIS4ML papers to gain an understanding of how humans inject their knowledge into ML workflows through interactive visualization. We collected a corpus of VIS4ML papers from the IEEE VIS conferences in the past decade. We developed a coding scheme to facilitate the literature research from four perspectives: characteristics of ML, visualization, interaction, and actions. The analysis of the coded dataset allows us to observe different pathways that transfer human knowledge to ML workflows via interactive visualization. Building on the analysis, we explain the phenomena of VIS4ML using the conceptual model that views VA as model building and the information-theoretic cost-benefit analysis that reasons VA as for optimizing ML workflows. This work provides unequivocal evidence showing the merits of using VA in ML workflows. The full list of surveyed papers, along with all analysis results and figures, is available at https://vis4ml4hd.github.io/ml-knowledge-inject-va/.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate queries, invoke tools, and construct analytical workflows. Although recent advances have substantially improved workflow generation and execution, the semantic information required to operationalize analytical concepts often lies beyond what is explicitly represented in database schemas and data values. We present a cross-domain formative study of operationalization failures in agent-generated analytical workflows. Across 236 analytical intents spanning finance, human resources, and public safety domains, we identify 153 recurring failures despite successful workflow generation and execution. Our analysis reveals five recurring classes of failures: comparative grounding, process reasoning, quantitative reasoning, role confusion, and policy grounding. These findings suggest a semantic gap between user-level analytical concepts and the information available to workflow-generation systems. More broadly, they raise questions about the admissibility of analytical operations and suggest that future agentic data systems may require richer semantic representations to bridge the gap between analytical intent and executable computation.

Scientific literature search often requires more than retrieving papers from a single query: users' intents are underspecified, preference-dependent, and evolve through interaction. Existing search agents typically rely on fixed pipelines or implicit language-only reasoning, making their search strategies difficult to control, inspect, and refine. We introduce PaperPilot, a multi-turn literature search agent that frames scientific search as workflow induction. Given an anchor paper and a user query, PaperPilot constructs an executable DAG of paper-search operators, including keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, and evidence extraction. User feedback is then used to refine both the query and the workflow itself. We train PaperPilot with supervised workflow imitation and preference optimization over controlled workflow corruptions. Experiments show that PaperPilot-9B improves over the base Qwen3.5-9B toolset agent under multi-turn interaction, increasing Hit@5 from 58.0 to 77.0, MRR from 47.5 to 59.4, and nDCG@10 from 26.8 to 32.5, while reducing workflow execution errors from 9.5% to 0%. These results show that explicit, editable search workflows provide an effective and controllable interface for aligning literature search agents with complex scientific intent.

Real-world data analysis is a multi-step process over heterogeneous inputs rather than merely producing a final answer. A practical system should autonomously organize multi-step workflows, execute generated code in a sandboxed and controllable environment, and remain inspectable through visible action traces and intermediate artifacts. Existing LLM-based analysis tools, however, often emphasize isolated subtasks, leaving limited support for complete execution-grounded workflows. We present DA-Studio (Data Analysis Studio), an interactive web-based demo system for end-to-end data analysis that is autonomous, sandboxed, and inspectable. DA-Studio integrates an action-structured analysis backend, a sandboxed execution workspace, and a browser interface for task setup, streamed action traces, artifact preview, code editing and rerunning, and report export. Through iterative action generation, code execution, and feedback incorporation, it incrementally constructs executable analysis steps from raw files and natural-language requests while exposing intermediate results and artifacts throughout the process.

Production large language-model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed not as lone problem-solvers but as managers: a main model creates specialized subagents, delegates work, and orchestrates their parallel, asynchronous returns through dynamic workflows. Whether one model can actually run such a team is largely unmeasured: existing benchmarks score a policy's own task-solving or a fixed multi-agent system's emergent behavior, but none isolate the management ability of the single LLM acting as leader. We introduce ClawArena-Team, a benchmark of 41 multi-turn, multimodal, multi-directory scenarios spanning 258 evaluation rounds and 72 staged updates that measures this management ability. The main agent is deliberately constrained: it natively perceives only text and directly accesses only part of the workspace. It commands a fixed, locally served subagent pool, so score differences reflect management skill, not raw capability. All scoring is execution-based with no LLM judge: an overall score -- the Subagent-Management Score (SMS) -- multiplies task correctness by a least-privilege and modality-routing factor. Across twelve proprietary, community-hosted, and self-hosted models, experiments show that the management bottleneck is privilege granting rather than perception (no model exceeds 50% workspace-permission precision); that cost and management quality are decoupled (API cost spans over 100 times while the overall score spans under 4 times, with the cheapest open models on the Pareto frontier); and that most leaderboard scores cluster within a 9.9-point band while orchestration behaviors diverge by more than an order of magnitude. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/ClawArena.

Tool-augmented language-model agents are often evaluated by whether they select the correct tool, produce valid API arguments, and complete the requested task. However, an agent may choose the right tool and still act on the wrong external entity. For example, a request to "email Alex about the launch" may lead the agent to contact the wrong Alex, attach the wrong launch document, reply in the wrong thread, or update the wrong customer account. We call these errors entity binding failures. This paper studies entity binding failures as a distinct reliability and safety problem in tool-augmented agents. We formalize the separation between tool correctness and entity correctness, introduce a taxonomy of wrong-entity failures in enterprise workflows, and evaluate entity-aware execution mechanisms including entity-resolution preconditions, confidence-gated binding, clarification under ambiguity, and provenance tracking. In a controlled diagnostic evaluation across 60 tasks, five model backends, and six tool-use methods, all methods achieved 0.0 percent wrong-tool error, yet action-oriented baselines still produced wrong-entity actions in 24.0-26.0 percent of runs. Entity-aware methods eliminated wrong-entity actions and risk-weighted wrong-entity exposure in this setting, but reduced direct task completion by deferring under ambiguity. These findings show that safe tool use requires not only selecting the correct tool, but also reliably binding natural-language references to the correct real-world entity before action.

Spreadsheets are widely used for business analysis, financial modeling, reporting, and decision-making. However, most existing spreadsheet benchmarks evaluate isolated operations such as single-formula generation or local cell edits, and therefore fail to capture end-to-end workflows in realistic business settings. We introduce \textsc{SpreadsheetBench 2}, a workflow-level benchmark for spreadsheet agents that covers three task categories: generation, debugging, and visualization. The benchmark is constructed from authentic business data, including financial reports and corporate filings, and is annotated and validated by domain experts. The benchmark contains 321 tasks; each instance averages 11.8 worksheets and requires 593.5 cell modifications, reflecting large multi-sheet workbooks with cross-sheet dependencies. We evaluate eight frontier large language models under a unified multi-turn agent scaffold, and additionally include several LLM-based spreadsheet products as complementary baselines. Results show that current systems remain far from reliable on real-world workflows: the best model achieves 34.89% overall task accuracy, and debugging accuracy is as low as 12.00%. Trajectory analysis and a failure taxonomy further indicate that insufficient spreadsheet inspection and incorrect target-cell selection are the dominant bottlenecks. Together, these findings position \textsc{SpreadsheetBench 2} as a challenging testbed for advancing reliable spreadsheet automation. Project page: https://spreadsheetbench.github.io/

Professional translation is often a team-based process: translators, reviewers, and project managers must coordinate terminology, legal force, and accountability across documents. Yet many LLM-based translation tools treat human corrections as isolated edits. Expert decisions made in one segment or by one member are rarely captured as reusable knowledge for the rest of the team. We present DeepTrans Studio, a collaborative translation workspace that lets professionals intercept selected nodes in an agentic translation workflow, review evidence, revise AI outputs, and save approved decisions to a shared team memory. During the demo, attendees will role-play translators and reviewers, resolve preset terminology and legal-modal risks, and see how their decisions are propagated to downstream segments and surfaced in a teammate's workspace as reusable precedents. The demo illustrates how human interventions in AI-mediated work can become shared, traceable knowledge rather than one-off corrections.

We introduce the process harness, a new mechanism for uplifting legacy workflows into Agentic Business Process Management (Agentic BPM) without replacing the underlying workflow engine. A process harness places a policy-governed agentic layer around a deterministic workflow engine, intercepting designated control points to contribute reasoning, adaptation, and oversight while the engine retains structural authority over the process. To define the process harness rigorously, we develop the Task-Decision-Flow (TDF) model, specifying both its data schema and its execution semantics. TDF decomposes LLM reasoning across three policy-governed agent types: a TaskAgent for knowledge-intensive task execution, a DecisionAgent for per-case gateway routing, and a FlowAgent that governs runtime flow adaptation through a principled hook mechanism. Each agent reasons within an explicit policy drawn from the process FRAME, the aggregate policy set governing all LLM calls in the system. We then present CUGA FLO as the design and implementation realization of the TDF model, and demonstrate it on a loan approval workflow that exercises all three agent types and hook-driven regulatory override. The process harness uniquely reconciles imperative requirements, realized through deterministic workflow execution that enforces structural compliance, with normative requirements, realized through policy-framed agentic autonomy invoked at designated control points wherever the process demands it.

Agents often repeatedly solve similar task instances from scratch, leading to unnecessary reasoning cost and long execution traces. Prior work has explored workflow reuse and executable skill induction, but it remains unclear which task scenarios admit procedural skills and how the shared procedural structure should be represented across successful traces. We study this problem in FSM-defined scenarios, where successful traces can be viewed as paths in an unknown transition graph, and formulate procedural skills as reusable parameterized control-flow subgraphs. Based on this view, we introduce SkillDisCo, a distillation-and-compilation framework that distills reusable PFSM subgraphs from successful traces and compiles them into callable, executable, and verifiable procedural skills. Experiments on ALFWorld and WebArena show that SkillDisCo improves success rates and reduces agent turns across benchmarks and model scales, demonstrating the benefits of representing shared experience as reusable execution structures.

Existing ECG report generation is tightly coupled -- interpretation and reporting fused end-to-end, so errors propagate without stage-level recourse -- while agent-based systems decouple tasks but remain single-pass, never revisiting earlier outputs. Clinical ECG reporting instead unfolds iteratively, requiring progressive context integration and bidirectional editing. We present \textsc{ATRIA}, a multi-agent ECG reporting system that mirrors the clinician's iterative workflow: it binds every report claim to its supporting evidence, flags statements unsupported by that evidence, incorporates additional context mid-session, and lets clinicians verify and revise individual findings rather than accept one opaque output. Because its agents use ECG analysis models already in clinical use, the underlying findings are clinically trustworthy; and as a cloud-based web service, \textsc{ATRIA} is ready for immediate deployment. We demonstrate \textsc{ATRIA} through four interaction cases, with a live demo and video available.

Graph and multi-agent orchestration frameworks make production large language model (LLM) workflows practical, but they do not by themselves solve conversational continuity when users maintain several interdependent objectives. This conceptual systems paper focuses on the high-complexity end of that design space, where goals can be suspended, resumed, revised, and invalidated by actions in other goals. We introduce the Goal-Oriented Dialogue Runtime (GODR), a framework-neutral design pattern that treats goals, task frames, lifecycle state, invalidation rules, and resumption contracts as first-class runtime objects while delegating bounded execution to graph runtimes, agents, tools, or application programming interfaces (APIs). GODR is not proposed as a replacement for workflow graphs in simple guided processes; it is intended for complex, multi-domain, interruptible conversations where objective continuity cannot be recovered reliably from agent identity, chat history, or execution-graph position alone. The paper formalizes the problem, proposes runtime objects and architecture-selection criteria, and frames evaluation as an agenda for future empirical validation rather than as a measured performance claim.

Decision-making in real-world settings rarely follows a fixed script. Instead, it unfolds as a dynamic reasoning process in which the appropriate course of action evolves as new context and data become available. Traditional Business Process Management systems provide rigor, determinism, and auditability, yet they generally struggle to adapt their execution at runtime. Conversely, agentic systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) bring flexibility to decision-making, but they are inherently opaque, often unreliable, and suffer from significant scalability constraints when operating over large datasets. To combine these complementary paradigms, we introduce VADAOrchestra, a neurosymbolic framework that models complex workflows as evolving reasoning processes. The framework adopts a hybrid approach: given a user query and a collection of data sources, an LLM-based orchestrator incrementally plans and adapts the workflow. This is encoded as a logic program in a fragment of Datalog+/- where predicates correspond to tool invocations and rules represent both predefined domain dependencies and logic constructs synthesized on demand to manipulate intermediate results. All logical inference tasks are then executed by a state-of-the-art Datalog+/- symbolic engine. This approach provides a verifiable reasoning trace, supporting the auditability and reproducibility of the entire process. Furthermore, by decoupling high-level orchestration from symbolic inference, it addresses scalability concerns, enabling complex reasoning over large datasets through targeted data querying. We evaluate VADAOrchestra on real-world financial use cases, demonstrating faithfulness, scalability, and explainability compared to standard agentic architectures.

Agentic AI systems orchestrate multiple LLM-based agents through workflow architectures that coordinate decisions, tools, and external actions. While current platforms emphasize runtime safeguards, little support exists for verifying workflows during system design. From a Modeling & Simulation perspective, this gap is analogous to composing conceptual models without verifying whether their building blocks interact coherently. We propose a design-time verification approach that models agentic workflows as compositions of reusable building blocks and checks their compatibility through twelve structural rules. We implemented these rules in a software prototype and evaluated them using two openly released datasets: 48 workflows with known design flaws and 168 variants that preserve workflow logic but alter graph structure. Results show that our verifier reliably detects violations even when flawed designs are obscured through structural transformations such as splitting tasks between agents. Future works could combine our verification with community repositories of building blocks to compose safe agentic workflows.

Large language models are increasingly used to answer questions over annual reports, earnings decks, and analyst notes, yet their outputs remain difficult to verify in high-stakes financial workflows. A fluent answer can blend directly grounded statements, weak synthesis, and unsupported claims across narrative text, tables, and charts. We present EvidenceLens, a visual analytics prototype that treats financial question answering as a claim-evidence alignment problem. The system decomposes an answer into atomic claims, summarizes support composition and confidence, support gaps, and coordinates claim-level inspection with source passages, table cells, and chart regions. Its core visual representation is a multimodal claim-evidence matrix that makes coverage, contradiction, and modality imbalance immediately visible. To support reproducibility, we also specify a JSON-based artifact schema, a lightweight multimodal alignment pipeline, and a deterministic review-priority ranking that maps backend signals into an auditable visual structure. Through representative report-auditing scenarios, we show how EvidenceLens helps analysts distinguish grounded claims from overconfident synthesis that conventional chat interfaces flatten.

LLM agents can write code and call tools, but reliable bioinformatics work requires long-horizon interaction with workflow software, typed data objects, provenance, and biological checks. We study this setting through Galaxy workflow execution. The agent must explore task data, construct or adapt an executable workflow DAG, bind inputs and dataset collections, monitor execution, debug failures, and validate biological outputs. We propose Process-Reward Tactic Evolution, a Galaxy-based training framework that turns verified workflow rollouts into reusable \tactics. During training, agents practice on curriculum-organized Galaxy tasks in Agent Gym; process verifiers score workflow construction, software interaction, execution, and biological correctness; successful and failed traces are distilled into a tactic library. At inference, the trained executor, Process-Reward Tactic Evolution, uses this library to execute held-out peer reviewed Galaxy workflow converted BioWorkflow Bench and BioAgent Bench tasks in isolated environments. The paper evaluates whether process-supervised tactic accumulation improves long-horizon bioinformatics workflow completion, biological correctness, and execution efficiency over no-memory and reflection-style baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to computer-aided design (CAD) to generate design artifacts from textual instructions. In engineering practice, this requires more than creating new geometry, models must also understand existing scenes, edit them correctly, and preserve semantics and relations. However, many CAD benchmarks focus on creating new models rather than editing existing ones, and mostly evaluate geometric correctness. We introduce BIM-Edit, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on natural-language editing of Building Information Models (BIM) represented in the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) format. BIM provides a challenging testbed because building models encode geometry together with semantic and relational structure. BIM-Edit contains 324 editing tasks spanning 11 realistic building models and 36 synthetic scenes. Tasks are expressed using three instruction categories - direct, spatial, and topological - covering both explicit and scene-grounded edits. We evaluate outputs along three dimensions: geometric accuracy, semantic validity, and topological consistency. Across evaluated LLMs, the best-performing model achieves only 49.5% average score across the three metrics, and no model fully solves more than 3.4% of tasks. These results demonstrate a substantial gap between current LLM capabilities and the requirements of structured engineering design workflows.

Voice agents deployed in structured workflows (customer service, healthcare scheduling, account management) must handle frequent user interruptions while maintaining progress through multi-step procedures. Existing benchmarks for speech-capable models focus on the timing of interruptions: barge-in detection, endpointing, and turn-taking dynamics. They leave unmeasured what happens after the interruption: does the agent resume the workflow at the correct step? Does it address the user's interjection? Does it avoid re-delivering content the user already heard? We introduce IHBench (Interruption Handling Benchmark), a benchmark that evaluates post-interruption recovery in voice agents executing state-machine-driven workflows across 10 enterprise domains. Six interruption types are injected at controlled points mid-utterance, with per-interruption evaluation rubrics generated alongside the data. Each interruption is scored on two axes: task fulfillment and recovery quality. We evaluate 27 audio-language model configurations from OpenAI, Google, and the open-weight community. Models vary widely, and recovery quality depends strongly on the interruption type. Across our experiments, closed-weight models are consistently more robust to interruptions than open-weight ones: they win far more often on task fulfillment, degrade roughly 3.3x more slowly as conversations grow longer, and show no audio-versus-text modality gap, whereas the open-weight models lose ground on all three. A human study validates the LLM judge against human annotators, and a cross-benchmark analysis against AudioMultiChallenge indicates that recovery quality is a largely distinct capability axis.

Federated learning over medical images is a demanding workflow application. Each round fans out across parallel client jobs and converges on an aggregation step that feeds the next round. At scale this yields 101 sub-workflows and 2,679 jobs on GPUs at four sites, which takes an expert months to build, mostly on workflow mechanics rather than science. We ask how far AI assistance can automate such workflows. An LLM agent, grounded in a released plugin of Pegasus-specific skills, first produces a reviewable specification of checkable constraints and acceptance criteria, then generates the executable workflow. A validation loop repairs runtime failures, checks code against those constraints, and regenerates the implementation from the specification alone. We evaluate three LLM agents, report end-to-end runs on the FABRIC testbed, and show how conformance checking against the specification caught three silent errors that failure-driven debugging missed, including one that trained 1,700 jobs on random tensors.

Deep research (DR) systems are increasingly used for complex information-seeking tasks, but existing works mainly focus on generating reports and summaries. In contrast, many enterprise tasks instead require an agent to identify concrete workflows which is a sequence of action-steps. For example, rather than summarizing budgeting policies, an agent should be able to determine the steps needed to answer a question such as: "How do I request new headcount given a fixed budget?". Therefore, we introduce DRFLOW, a benchmark for evaluating personalized workflows predicted by agents from heterogeneous sources. Each task requires the agent to identify relevant evidence from scattered sources, then use that evidence to predict the correct action-step sequence for the user's task. DRFLOW contains 100 tasks across five domains, with 1,246 reference workflow steps grounded in more than 3,900 sources. We define seven diagnostic metrics covering factual grounding, step recovery, structural ordering, condition resolution, and personalization. We further present DRFLOW-Agent (DRFA), a workflow-oriented reference agent to predict personalized workflow. We show that although DRFA improves over strong baseline agents (upto 10.02% average F1 score), there is substantial room for improvement remains across these workflow metrics, indicating that predicting complete and correct personalized workflows remains a challenging frontier for deep research.

Segmenting 3D assets into meaningful regions remains challenging, especially when segmentation criteria are application-dependent and require user control. We present a human-in-the-loop pipeline for generating a segmented 2D parameterized atlas from a 3D model for interactive media, game, and XR content workflows. Our method first selects a compact set of rendered views using a greedy set cover strategy over sampled surface points, and then supports interactive segmentation of these views with SAM~2 and Label Studio. The resulting masks are back-projected onto the model's UV parameterization to produce a unified segmented atlas that supports downstream production tasks such as segment-wise material assignment, style transfer, and semantic labeling. We assess the pipeline through a demonstration-based technical evaluation on eight cultural heritage objects. The results show that the approach can generate usable segmented atlases across diverse geometries while revealing recurring sources of manual correction, particularly fine structures, cavities, and weak appearance boundaries.

AI-driven engineering workflows face particular challenges in crash safety design: unlike aerodynamics, crash events involve highly nonlinear contact dynamics, material nonlinearity, and discrete state transitions that are difficult to capture with data-driven surrogate models. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first foundation model--orchestrated workflow for crash safety design that enables surrogate-assisted exploration for pedestrian protection, reducing evaluation time from hours per CAE simulation to seconds. The workflow integrates four components: (1) a surrogate trained on CAE crash simulations to predict pedestrian leg injury metrics from design parameters, achieving an average $R^2=0.87$ and providing distribution-free conformal prediction intervals; (2) multiobjective evolutionary search (NSGA-II) to discover diverse feasible parameter sets under user-specified constraints; (3) a morphing-based geometry generator that maps parameters to topology-preserving 3D shapes; and (4) a natural-language interface in which an LLM orchestrates the workflow and a vision--language model supports semantic comparison of generated designs. In an automotive front-bumper case study, the workflow produces 35 distinct safety-compliant alternatives from a single exploration, a process that would require weeks with conventional CAE iteration. These results suggest that foundation models can serve as integration layers between ML surrogates and physics-based simulation, helping bring AI capabilities to safety-critical engineering domains.

While expert-validated "LLM + script" workflows deliver significant value, they remain static: they encode hard-won domain knowledge yet fail to adapt execution based on feedback. Existing agent research predominantly targets greenfield agents and synthetic benchmarks, leaving the migration of active legacy workflows unresolved. To bridge this gap, we present a reversible, Strangler-Fig migration path that refactors legacy workflows into composable, typed, and auditable stages. Central to this framework is a three-tier convertibility taxonomy (A/B/C), implemented as a routing stage within the system harness, which diagnoses a workflow's readiness and routes it accordingly.

Biomolecular sequence models are increasingly reused outside the studies in which they were introduced, but public checkpoints rarely preserve the execution context needed to inspect source-defined behavior, adapt models to new assays, compare models under shared task definitions or deploy biological predictions. MultiMolecule is an open-source Python ecosystem that turns heterogeneous RNA, DNA and protein sequence-model releases into complete, source-checked model-family implementations with shared loading, workflow and prediction interfaces. The Resource state reported here includes 53 complete model-family implementations with 112 standardized model checkpoints, together with 16 curated dataset resources released through 39 public dataset repositories and 10 user-facing prediction pipelines. Standardized components are linked to source provenance, conversion or preparation code, source-reference checks, Extended Data summaries and public documentation, allowing users to inspect what was standardized, what behavior was checked and how each component enters training, evaluation, inference or deployment. By shifting reuse from repository-specific checkpoints to executable implementations connected to standardized checkpoints, curated datasets, Runner workflows and biological prediction pipelines, MultiMolecule provides common infrastructure for preserving source-defined model behavior, adapting models to new assays, enabling controlled evaluation and deploying biomolecular predictions.

This paper proposes an unsupervised workflow to pseudo-label extracellular spikes from human brain slice MEA recordings into two putative cell types: pyramidal cells and interneurons. Here, the raw data from the data acquisition system is used and processed. The pipeline for pre-processing includes bandpass filtering, threshold--based spike detection, frame alignment and normalization. In the ML workflow, dimensionality reduction (PCA, t-SNE, UMAP), clustering (GMM, k-means). To achieve an online system, template matching and OSort under varying curation strictness is also considered. All pipelines are evaluated by different cluster quality with within-cluster Pearson correlation, Silhouette score, and Calinski-Harabasz index. Applying stricter curation improves separation at some cost to inclusivity.

Synthetic and distilled student data are increasingly used to enable privacy-conscious learning analytics, yet their suitability for decision-facing institutional support remains uncertain. In dropout support, generated data must preserve not only predictive utility or distributional resemblance, but also the financial-status evidence used to guide advising, payment-plan assistance, and scholarship-related decisions. Method: This study introduces CaP-Eval, a decision-facing causal-privacy audit workflow for evaluating generated student data under a fixed estimand, timing-aware adjustment design, estimator set, and empirical privacy-governance screen. The workflow compares original, distilled, adversarial synthetic, statistical synthetic, and DPGNet privacy-oriented generated data on predictive utility, treatment-effect fidelity, robustness to alternative estimators, and local training-record proximity. Results: DPGNet and distilled data preserved the original financial-status treatment-effect structure more reliably than the adversarial and Gaussian Copula baselines. DPGNet preserved full direction and rank agreement across epsilon levels; epsilon = 10 produced the smallest non-original IPW and DML deviations, while epsilon = 1 and epsilon = 5 amplified several financial-status contrasts. Distilled data remained highly faithful but retained the strongest local training-record proximity signal. TabularGNet preserved qualitative directions with moderate attenuation, and Gaussian Copula compressed effect magnitudes. Conclusions: Predictive utility, privacy orientation, empirical disclosure signals, and causal fidelity diverged; generated student data require joint audits of direction, magnitude, overlap, and release-governance risk before decision use.

Online web agents often augment a base actor with memory, workflow, or skill modules. These modules can improve performance, but they also consume test-time tokens, a cost rarely reported alongside the actor's inference cost. We study online augmentation, where this overhead is paid on every task, and re-evaluate its benefits under a fixed total inference budget. We compare AWM, ASI, and ReasoningBank with a token-matched vanilla baseline that uses the same budget for additional actor steps. Across four WebArena domains and three models, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5.4-mini, and Qwen 3.6-27B, the vanilla baseline matches or surpasses all three augmentation methods in aggregate success rate while often using fewer total tokens. We observe a similar trend on WorkArena-L1 with Qwen 3.6-27B, indicating that the effect extends to enterprise knowledge-work tasks. Our results suggest that skills and workflow memory can be useful in specific domains, but their apparent gains often vanish against a budget-matched actor. We further show that run-to-run variance materially affects outcomes and should be reported as a core evaluation criterion for online web agents.

Sequential or time-stamped interaction logs provide objective records of digital application usage, yet their granularity and noise often obscure meaningful insights into people's work. Such insights are essential for improving digital products in ways grounded in real-world user interactions. Prior research has applied deep learning models to cluster user actions into high-level activities, but these approaches are highly sensitive to noise and struggle to generalize across applications. To address this limitation, we introduce WorkflowView, a framework that uses large language models (LLMs) to abstract low-level action sequences into high-level activities. We establish the effectiveness and generality of our approach across three distinct, challenging sequential tasks and diverse domains: (a) zero-shot task description reconstruction from browser logs (achieving high semantic similarity, $μ_{sim} = 0.91$), (b) few-shot student dropout prediction using MOOC interaction logs (reaching weighted $F_1 = 0.90$ with only five few-shot examples), and (c) anonymized, privacy-preserving analysis of AI tool integration within document workflows in Microsoft Word. Our work demonstrates that LLM-based abstraction is a robust and efficient path forward for transforming low-level behavioral data into high-level, interpretable, and actionable insights. We also discuss practical considerations for deploying LLM-based inferences within logging infrastructures, including computational efficiency and user privacy.