WorkflowPerturb: Calibrated Stress Tests for Evaluating Multi-Agent Workflow Metrics
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-agent LLM systems that generate structured workflows from natural-language requests are now deployed in production across cloud automation, DevOps, and enterprise orchestration. Operating them exposes a recurring change-management problem. Routine updates, such as re-running an input, swapping the LLM, or refactoring an agent's prompt or orchestration code, often produce workflows that differ substantially from validated references. Engineers then lack a principled way to decide whether a change is safe to ship. Automatic workflow evaluation is the natural tool, but in practice metric scores are poorly calibrated, and a numeric change rarely communicates the severity of the underlying degradation. We introduce WorkflowPerturb, a controlled benchmark that applies realistic, graded perturbations to golden workflows. It contains 4,973 golden workflows and 44,757 perturbed variants across three perturbation types (Missing Steps, Compressed Steps, Description Changes) at severities of 10%, 30%, and 50%. We benchmark multiple metric families, analyzing their sensitivity and calibration using expected score trajectories and instance-level alert rates. Our results characterize systematic differences across families and support severity-aware interpretation of workflow evaluation scores in change-management settings. WorkflowPerturb is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/microsoft/WorkflowPerturb .
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2026.
Builds on
8 of 26 references.
References · 8
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,475
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
- 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
- 2023ChemCrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry toolscited by 631
- 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 269
- 2023GeneGPT: Augmenting Large Language Models with Domain Tools for Improved Access to Biomedical Informationcited by 117
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Do More Agents Help? Controlled and Protocol-Aligned Evaluation of LLM Agent Workflows
- 2026Claw-Eval-Live: A Live Agent Benchmark for Evolving Real-World Workflows
- 2026PROTEA: Offline Evaluation and Iterative Refinement for Multi-Agent LLM Workflows
- 2026From Static Templates to Dynamic Runtime Graphs: A Survey of Workflow Optimization for LLM Agents
- 2025QualityFlow: An Agentic Workflow for Program Synthesis Controlled by LLM Quality Checks
- 2026Benchmarks are Not Enough: RAMP for Runtime Assessing of Agentic Models in Production Systems
- 2025AgentCompass: Towards Reliable Evaluation of Agentic Workflows in Production
- 2026Diagnosis-Driven Automatic Repair for Agentic Workflow via Symbolic Inference