# Learning Compositional Meta-Routing for Agentic Workflows: An Executable Benchmark

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00106 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00106/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 14 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18665/) (2024)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models through Question Complexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14403/) (2024)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [An LLM Compiler for Parallel Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04511/) (2023)
- [AnyTool: Self-Reflective, Hierarchical Agents for Large-Scale API Calls](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04253/) (2024)
- [ICL-Router: In-Context Learned Model Representations for LLM Routing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09719/) (2025)
- [CP-Router: An Uncertainty-Aware Router Between LLM and LRM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19970/) (2025)
- [SPIRAL: Symbolic LLM Planning via Grounded and Reflective Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.23167/) (2025)
- [Breaking Model Lock-in: Cost-Efficient Zero-Shot LLM Routing via a Universal Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06220/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic systems must decide not only what answer to produce, but which reasoning and execution operations should precede it. A controller may answer directly, decompose a request, retrieve evidence, execute code, delegate to a specialist, or verify an intermediate result. Existing routing work largely selects model endpoints, retrieval depth, or tools in isolation. We introduce an executable benchmark and a budget-aware meta-router that composes heterogeneous operations from raw task text. The benchmark contains 216 training, 72 development, 108 held-out test, and 108 locked lexical-shift challenge tasks across data analysis, frozen-corpus research, and document processing. Outcomes are machine checked after operations execute. Independent regularized logistic heads predict operation probabilities from word and character features, are temperature-scaled on development data, and are greedily composed under route-cost and action-count budgets. On the held-out test, the learned policy achieves 100% success versus 93.5% for strong static and fixed workflows, with 43% lower cost than the static policy; a matched learned one-shot router reaches 56.5%. On the untouched challenge split, learned success falls to 75.9% and trails static routing at 93.5%, while remaining 49% cheaper and exceeding one-shot routing by 34.3 points. The gap identifies lexical generalization, rather than route execution, as the principal limitation. These results establish a reproducible testbed and a bounded proof of concept, not evidence of live-LLM performance.