The DOI matches its DataCite record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automating the Enterprise with Foundation Models
Open accessAbstract
Automating enterprise workflows could unlock $4 trillion/year in productivity gains. Despite being of interest to the data management community for decades, the ultimate vision of end-to-end workflow automation has remained elusive. Current solutions rely on process mining and robotic process automation (RPA), in which a bot is hard-coded to follow a set of predefined rules for completing a workflow. Through case studies of a hospital and large B2B enterprise, we find that the adoption of RPA has been inhibited by high set-up costs (12-18 months), unreliable execution (60% initial accuracy), and burdensome maintenance (requiring multiple FTEs). Multimodal foundation models (FMs) such as GPT-4 offer a promising new approach for end-to-end workflow automation given their generalized reasoning and planning abilities. To study these capabilities we propose ECLAIR, a system to automate enterprise workflows with minimal human supervision. We conduct initial experiments showing that multimodal FMs can address the limitations of traditional RPA with (1) near-human-level understanding of workflows (93% accuracy on a workflow understanding task) and (2) instant set-up with minimal technical barrier (based solely on a natural language description of a workflow, ECLAIR achieves end-to-end completion rates of 40%). We identify human-AI collaboration, validation, and self-improvement as open challenges, and suggest ways they can be solved with data management techniques. Code is available at: https://github.com/HazyResearch/eclair-agents
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“many agentic AI applications are data-dependent : Outputs depend not only on input queries but also on external data ( e.g., data-intensive reasoning [39]) or dynamic environments ( e.g., web or GUI agents [70, 55, 54]).”
From Cost-Efficient Serving of LLM Agents via Test-Time Plan Caching. arXiv. (2025) · cites this paper as [54]
Citations
Cites
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior
Park, J. S., O'Brien, J., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 · Cited by 2,187
How Can We Know What Language Models Know?
Jiang, Z., Xu, F. F., Araki, J., & Neubig, G. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00324 · Cited by 1,002
Can Foundation Models Wrangle Your Data?
Narayan, A., Chami, I., Orr, L., & Ré, C. (2022) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3574245.3574258 · Cited by 329
Self-citationDrive Like a Human: Rethinking Autonomous Driving with Large Language Models
Fu, D., Li, X., Wen, L., Dou, M., Cai, P., Shi, B., & Qiao, Y. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) · doi:10.1109/wacvw60836.2024.00102 · Cited by 242
AI-augmented Business Process Management Systems: A Research Manifesto
Dumas, M., Fournier, F., Limonad, L., Marrella, A., Montali, M., Rehse, J.-R., Accorsi, R., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G. D., Fahland, D., et al. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3576047 · Cited by 215
Query-based Workload Forecasting for Self-Driving Database Management Systems
Ma, L., Aken, D. V., Hefny, A., Mezerhane, G., Pavlo, A., & Gordon, G. J. (2018) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3183713.3196908 · Cited by 206
Self-Driving Database Management Systems.
Pavlo, A., Angulo, G. B., Arulraj, J. J. P., Lin, H., Lin, J., Ma, L., Menon, P., Mowry, T. C., Perron, M., Quah, I., et al. (2017) · Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research · Cited by 203
CogAgent: A Visual Language Model for GUI Agents
Hong, W., Wang, W., Lv, Q., Xu, J., Yu, W., Ji, J., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Dong, Y., Ding, M., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01354 · Cited by 202
From Robotic Process Automation to Intelligent Process Automation
Chakraborti, T., Isahagian, V., Khalaf, R. Y., Khazaeni, Y., Muthusamy, V., Rizk, Y., & Unuvar, M. (2020) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58779-6_15 · Cited by 179
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Drift-Aware Agentic ETL for Schema-Evolving Data Lakes
Wang, W., Zhang, Y., Pan, Z., Ke, Z., Sun, Y., & Yun, Y. (2026) · International Conference on Generative Artificial Intelligence and Information Security (GAIIS) · doi:10.1109/gaiis69281.2026.11519158 · Cited by 20
Unveiling Challenges for LLMs in Enterprise Data Engineering
Bodensohn, J.-M., Brackmann, U., Vogel, L., Sanghi, A., & Binnig, C. (2025) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3773749.3773758 · Cited by 11
DriftMender: LLM-Guided Semantic Repair for Schema Drift in Real-Time ETL Pipelines
Tang, L., Mei, Y., Ren, X., Ke, Y., Ke, Z., & Bian, Z. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Algorithms (CAIBDA) · doi:10.1109/caibda70336.2026.11621646 · Cited by 11
Balancing Business, IT, and Human Capital: RPA Integration and Governance Dynamics
Brás, J. C., Pereira, R., Melo, M., Bianchi, I. S., & Ribeiro, R. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16090793 · Cited by 9
LLMATCH: A Unified Schema Matching Framework with Large Language Models
Wang, S., Li, Y., Xiao, H., Dai, B. T., Lee, R. K.-W., Dong, Y., & Deng, L. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-5722-6_37 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Wornow, M., Narayan, A., Opsahl-Ong, K., McIntyre, Q., Shah, N. H., & Re, C.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2805-2812
- ISSN
- 2150-8097 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2405.03710
- OpenAlex
- W4402043034
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 3.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1763315, 1563078, 1937301)
- Accenture
- VMware
- National Institutes of Health (N000141712266)
- Office of Naval Research (N000141712266)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (U54EB020405)
- U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Robotic Process Automation Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Business Process Modeling and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- multimodal foundation models, GPT-4, robotic process automation, process mining, ECLAIRs, human-AI collaboration, workflow validation, self-improving AI
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
