ScoreFlow: Mastering LLM Agent Workflows via Score-based Preference Optimization
Open accessAbstract
Recent research has leveraged large language model multi-agent systems for complex problem-solving while trying to reduce the manual effort required to build them, driving the development of automated agent workflow optimization methods. However, existing methods remain inflexible due to representational limitations, a lack of adaptability, and poor scalability when relying on discrete optimization techniques. We address these challenges with ScoreFlow, a simple yet high-performance framework that leverages efficient gradient-based optimization in a continuous space. ScoreFlow incorporates Score-DPO, a novel variant of the direct preference optimization method that accounts for quantitative feedback. Across six benchmarks spanning question answering, coding, and mathematical reasoning, ScoreFlow achieves an 8.2% improvement over existing baselines. Moreover, it empowers smaller models to outperform larger ones with lower inference costs. Project: https://github.com/Gen-Verse/ScoreFlow
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
ScoreFlow is an automated multi-agent workflow generation framework that uses code as workflow representation and Score-DPO, a DPO variant incorporating quantitative evaluation scores. Across six benchmarks, it reports an 8.2% average improvement over baselines and enables smaller models to outperform larger ones at lower inference cost.
Key findings
- ScoreFlow achieves an average solve rate of 85.3%, surpassing baselines by 8.2% across HotpotQA, DROP, HumanEval, MBPP, GSM8K, and MATH; its per-dataset scores are HotpotQA 86.0, DROP 86.2, HumanEval 95.9, MBPP 84.7, GSM8K 94.6, and MATH 64.4.
- Within the same pipeline, Score-DPO outperforms SFT, PPO, and DPO on test sets, e.g. MATH 64.4 vs DPO 60.4, MBPP 84.7 vs DPO 82.9, and GSM8K 94.6 vs DPO 91.7.
- Ablations show robustness across models: on HumanEval with GPT-4o-mini executor, ScoreFlow scores 95.7 vs CoT 91.6; with GPT-4o executor, 97.7 vs CoT 93.4.
- Optimization cost is lower than AFlow: $2.2570 vs $4.6081 with GPT-4o-mini, $1.4124 vs $2.9160 with DeepSeek-V3, and $1.3966 vs $2.8664 with DeepSeek-coder.
Methods
- ScoreFlow iteratively generates k=8 workflows per problem using a generator (default Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct), executes them with an executor LLM (default GPT-4o-mini) to obtain scores s_i ∈ [0,1], constructs preference pairs where s_i > s_j, and fine-tunes the generator with Score-DPO for M=3 iterations.
- Score-DPO upweights preference pairs with larger score differences via d(x,y)=(x−y)^3 and incorporates scores into the Bradley-Terry ranking objective with f(x)=x; its theoretical analysis shows per-sample influence increases with score under condition |r_z|≤1, reported to hold with average probability 91.1%.
- Evaluation uses six public datasets: HumanEval, MBPP, GSM8K (1,319 test points), MATH difficulty-5 problems, DROP and HotpotQA (1,000 samples each), with a 1:4 validation/test split; metrics are solve rates (averaged over 3 runs) and F1 for DROP/HotpotQA.
Limitations
- The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section. It states that evaluation scores contain unavoidable variance and error, which motivated Score-DPO, and notes that DPO can struggle to learn preference rankings.
- The paper’s theoretical guarantee for Score-DPO relies on the condition |r_z|≤1; it reports this holds with average probability 91.1% (MATH 99.8%, DROP 82.2%, MBPP 91.2%), so it is not always satisfied.
- Evident from the setup: experiments are limited to six benchmarks and specific generator/executor/judge choices (default Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct generator, GPT-4o-mini executor; GPT-4o-mini judge for MATH, DROP, and HotpotQA), so broader generalization is not established in the text.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 26 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
ScoreFlow consistently outperforms all manually designed workflow methods and automated workflow optimization methods included in the baselines across all benchmarks.
“Our proposed method, ScoreFlow, consistently outperforms all manually designed workflow methods as well as automated workflow optimization methods included in the baselines across all benchmarks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The per-sample influence I(z) in Score-DPO is strictly monotonically increasing with the score s_z when the condition -(1 - f(s_z))^{-1} <= r_z <= f^{-1}(s_z) holds.
“which is strictly monotonically increasing with the score s z when -(1 -f (s z )) -1 ≤ r z ≤ f -1 (s z ) holds.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Experimental results indicate that |r_z| <= 1 holds with an approximate probability of 91.1% during the optimization process prior to convergence.
“Furthermore, our experimental results (in Appendix A.3.3) indicate that |r z | ≤ 1 holds with an approximate probability of 91.1% during the optimization process prior to convergence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The two automated workflow optimization methods, despite employing GPT-4o-mini as the workflow generator, consistently underperform compared to ScoreFlow, which uses a significantly smaller 8B model as the generator, across all tasks.
“The two automated workflow optimization methods, despite employing GPT-4o-mini as the workflow generator, consistently underperform compared to our approach, which utilizes a significantly smaller 8B model as the generator, across all tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
ScoreFlow achieves 88.1% performance on the combined task.
“Specifically, ScoreFlow achieves a 88.1% performance on the combined task.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
- Findingown data
Rapid convergence can be achieved as early as the second iteration.
“We observed that rapid convergence can be achieved as early as the second iteration in our study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
Score-DPO consistently outperforms widely used preference optimization methods.
“Additionally, Score-DPO consistently outperforms widely used preference optimization methods.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
When α is taken to an extreme, such as α=100, performance deteriorates significantly.
“However, when α is taken to an extreme, such as α = 100, the performance deteriorates significantly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
- Findingown data
ScoreFlow achieves a more pronounced performance advantage over AFlow on the more diverse combined dataset.
“Figure 3 demonstrates that ScoreFlow achieves a more pronounced performance advantage over AFlow on the more diverse combined dataset.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
ScoreFlow, when utilizing smaller models such as GPT-4o-mini and DeepSeek-V3, outperforms the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) outputs of the larger GPT-4o model.
“Second, we observe that ScoreFlow, when utilizing smaller models such as GPT-4o-mini and DeepSeek-V3, outperforms the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) outputs of the larger GPT-4o model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
- Findingown data
The best performance is achieved when GPT-4o or DeepSeek-coder is used as the generator.
“The best performance is achieved when GPT-4o or DeepSeek-coder is used as the generator.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
- Findingreasoning
F(x)=xσ(−ax+b) is strictly monotonically increasing with x>0 if a≤1/x.
“F (x) = xσ(-ax + b) is strictly monotonically increasing with x > 0 if a ≤ 1/x.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
For the simple, concise, and calculation-light Problem A, employing an overly complex workflow can result in overthinking and inefficiency.
“Conversely, for the simple, concise, and calculation-light Problem A, employing an overly complex workflow can result in overthinking and inefficiency.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
ScoreFlow consistently outperforms baseline methods across various combinations of generators and executors.
“From the results in Table 3, we first demonstrate the robustness of our method by showing that it consistently outperforms baseline methods across various combinations of generators and executors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
- Findingown data
The sufficient condition |r_z| ≤ 1 is satisfied with probabilities of 99.8%, 82.2%, and 91.2% for the MATH, DROP, and MBPP datasets, respectively.
“Our analysis reveals that this condition is satisfied with probabilities of 99.8%, 82.2%, and 91.2% for the MATH, DROP, and MBPP datasets, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Premisecitation
Existing automated workflow optimization methods remain inflexible due to representational limitations, a lack of adaptability, and poor scalability when relying on discrete optimization techniques.
“However, existing methods remain inflexible due to representational limitations, a lack of adaptability, and poor scalability when relying on discrete optimization techniques.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“The automated optimization methods can be constrained by the limitations inherent in pre-defined workflow structures and the rigidity of workflow space representations [17,49,44,21].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked- cites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [44]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
- Premisenone given
Score-DPO incorporates quantitative score information directly into the optimization process.
“To address these limitations, we propose a widely applicable preference optimization method, Score-DPO, which incorporates quantitative score information directly into the optimization process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductnone given
The evaluation score is derived by using an independent executor LLM to execute the workflow, calculating the average F1 score or win rate from the outputs.
“The evaluation score is derived by using an independent executor LLM to execute the workflow, calculating the average F1 score or win rate from their outputs in our experiments.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The slow convergence and suboptimal performance of DPO in this setting are due to errors and variance in the evaluation scores.
“These issues are due to errors and variance in the evaluation scores.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Existing automated workflow optimization methods optimize a single workflow for the entire task set, limiting adaptability and scalability for larger datasets containing diverse problems.
“Additionally, they all optimize a single workflow for the entire task set, which limits adaptability and scalability for larger datasets containing diverse problems [45,32].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [45]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
The condition in Theorem 3.2 is not restrictive, as |r_z| <= 1 provides a sufficient condition for its validity.
“Note that the condition stated in Theorem 3.2 is not restrictive, as |r z | ≤ 1 provides a sufficient condition for its validity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Loss-gradient optimization makes ScoreFlow more flexible and scalable than previous discrete optimization methods.
“The loss-gradient optimization makes it more flexible and scalable than previous discrete optimization methods [46,14,21].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Using an open-source LLM as the foundational model for workflow generation minimizes the costs associated with workflow generation.
“Furthermore, by leveraging an open-source LLM as the foundational model for workflow generation, our framework minimizes the costs associated with workflow generation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
By omitting less deterministic pairs, the model loses valuable information, which adversely impacts its ability to generalize effectively.
“By omitting less deterministic pairs, the model loses valuable information, which adversely impacts its ability to generalize effectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
- Interpretationown data
The result that workflow optimization enables DeepSeek-V3 to achieve comparable performance highlights the effectiveness of the proposed method.
“This result highlights the effectiveness of our proposed method.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
- Interpretationown data
The consistent increase in test solve rate followed by its eventual convergence demonstrates the effectiveness of the iterative approach.
“The consistent increase in test solve rate, followed by its eventual convergence, demonstrates the effectiveness of the iterative approach.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11
May combine two claims.
Findingnone givenScore-DPO achieves improved performance over standard DPO while maintaining efficiency and stability in the authors' applications.
“This approach achieves improved performance over standard DPO while maintaining its efficiency and stability in our applications.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataScoreFlow achieves an average solve rate of 85.3%, surpassing the baseline methods by a margin of 8.2%.
“Notably, our method achieves an average solve rate of 85.3%, surpassing the baseline methods by a margin of 8.2%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningDirectly using DPO to fine-tune the generator on collected preference data results in slow convergence and an inability to achieve optimal performance.
“We observe that directly using DPO to finetune the generator on collected preference data results in slow convergence and an inability to achieve optimal performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenScoreFlow enables smaller models to outperform larger models while incurring lower API costs.
“Notably, our method enables smaller models to outperform larger models while incurring lower API costs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataScore-DPO incorporates specific evaluation ranking information into DPO and achieves both efficiency and the best performance among the baselines.
“Score-DPO incorporates specific evaluation ranking information into DPO, achieving both efficiency and the best performance among the baselines.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAlthough DeepSeek-V3 exhibits a performance gap compared to GPT-4o and DeepSeek-coder when evaluated as a standalone agent, workflow optimization enables DeepSeek-V3 to achieve performance comparable to that of GPT-4o and DeepSeek-coder.
“Notably, although DeepSeek-V3 exhibits a performance gap compared to GPT-4o and DeepSeek-coder when evaluated as a standalone agent, workflow optimization enables DeepSeek-V3 to achieve performance comparable to that of GPT-4o and DeepSeek-coder.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataIncreasing α in d(x,y)=(x−y)^α leads to improved performance.
“Our results demonstrate that increasing α leads to improved performance, as higher values of α upweight the more deterministic preference pairs, thereby reducing variance and error in the collected preference data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
- Rests on an assumption: Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataOn average, the condition |r_z| ≤ 1 is upheld with a probability of 91.1% across three different tasks in the experiments.
“On average, the condition is upheld with a probability of 91.1% across three different tasks in our experiments”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor the more complex and computation-intensive Problem B, constructing a sophisticated workflow with program and review operators helps mitigate calculation errors, while calculation errors occur when using a simple workflow.
“For the more complex and computation-intensive Problem B, constructing a sophisticated workflow with program and review operators helps mitigate calculation errors, while calculation errors occur when using a simple workflow.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataScoreFlow consistently costs less than AFlow in the optimization process while performing better.
“From Figure 4b, we demonstrate that ScoreFlow consistently costs less than Aflow in the optimization process while performing better, which highlights the cost-efficiency of our method.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisereasoningScoreFlow is an automated and cost-efficient multi-agent workflow generation framework that employs a novel optimization method to achieve high performance, scalability, and adaptability.
“To address these challenges, we propose ScoreFlow, an automated and cost-efficient multi-agent workflow generation framework that employs a novel optimization method to achieve high performance, scalability, and adaptability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMulti-agent LLM workflows enable LLM-based agents to collaborate and solve complex tasks across domains such as mathematical problem solving, question answering, and coding.
“Furthermore, the multiagent system (workflow) of LLMs, where multiple agents coordinate and exchange information to complete tasks, enables LLM-based agents to collaborate and solve complex tasks across a wide range of domains, such as mathematical problem solving [47,38], question answering [24], and coding tasks [12,28].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked- cites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAFlow employs a variant of Monte Carlo Tree Search as an optimization method to enhance efficiency, but overly rapid convergence on workflow structures combined with discrete optimization restricts exploration and often leads to suboptimal outcomes.
“However, the overly rapid convergence on workflow structures, combined with the discrete optimization method, restricts the exploration of the search space, often leading to suboptimal outcomes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationDPO is efficient and stable, but variance and inaccuracies in evaluation scores reduce the reliability of preference data, slowing convergence and hindering optimal performance within limited iterations.
“While DPO is efficient and stable, variance and inaccuracies in evaluation scores reduce the reliability of preference data, slowing convergence and hindering optimal performance within limited iterations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationADAS faces challenges with inefficient search processes and coarse workflow storage, leading to accumulation of irrelevant data and increased complexity, reducing its effectiveness.
“However, ADAS faces challenges with inefficient search processes and coarse workflow storage, which leads to the accumulation of irrelevant data and increased complexity, ultimately reducing its effectiveness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAFlow and ADAS employ code as representation for workflow, facilitating robust and flexible workflow searches.
“To improve representation capabilities, AFlow [46] and ADAS [14] employ code as representation for workflow, facilitating robust and flexible workflow searches.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitationUnlike self-improvement methods, which rely on the generator for evaluation, ScoreFlow uses third-party sources such as validation datasets and an executor LLM for evaluation.
“Unlike self-improvement methods, which rely on the generator for evaluation [16], thereby making the iteration self-referential, our approach uses third-party sources (e.g., validation datasets and executor LLM).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [16]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationUsing code as a representation of the workflow function can account for linear sequences, loops, conditional logic, and provides flexibility exceeding graph or network structures.
“Using code as a representation of the workflow function W f [14,46] can account for linear sequences, loops, conditional logic, and provide flexibility that exceeds graph or network structures.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDPO inherently tends to favor out-of-distribution (unseen) responses or data.
“Moreover, DPO inherently tends to favor out-of-distribution (unseen) responses or data [37].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe condition C⋆ ensures quality control of the workflow by guaranteeing the absence of runtime errors and adherence to execution time limits.
“The condition C ⋆ ensures quality control of our workflow by guaranteeing the absence of runtime errors and adherence to execution time limits.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The condition C⋆ can be satisfied for generated workflows during optimization.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenOur execution model incorporates greater sophistication compared to open-source generators.
“Our execution model incorporates greater sophistication compared to open-source generators.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenDPO is a special case where α=0 when ignoring f(x).
“DPO is a special case where α = 0 when ignoring f (x).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe workflow template provided is designed for a single agent to guide the generator in adhering to a predefined structure and minimizing runtime execution errors.
“The workflow template we provide is designed for a single agent to guide the generator in adhering to a predefined structure and minimizing runtime execution errors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe design of the operators used in ScoreFlow is based on the Aflow framework.
“The design of these operators is based on the Aflow framework [46].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe template used imposes no prior knowledge of which structure to build or which operator to choose.
“The template we use imposes no prior knowledge of which structure to build or which operator to choose.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenThe sufficient condition provided in Theorem 3.2 is |r_z| ≤ 1.
“The sufficient condition provided in Theorem 3.2 is |r z | ≤ 1.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationUsing PPO to optimize over long token sequences in this setting can dilute gradient signals, making it more difficult for the model to discern which parts of the sequence contribute most to the reward, leading to instability and degraded performance.
“Using PPO to optimize over long token sequences in our setting can dilute gradient signals, making it more difficult for the model to discern which parts of the sequence contribute most to the reward.This leads to instability and degraded performance [30,8].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe condition |r_z| ≤ 1 is robust across diverse datasets and substantiates its practical applicability in guiding optimization under varied scenarios.
“demonstrating its robustness across diverse datasets and substantiating its practical applicability in guiding optimization under varied scenarios.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenThe plot in Figure 2 highlights the adaptivity of the generation process.
“This plot highlights the adaptivity of the generation process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataComprehensive ablation studies across various models highlight the robustness and cost-efficiency of ScoreFlow.
“Comprehensive ablation studies across various models highlight the robustness and cost-efficiency of our approach.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Manually designed agentic workflows require significant effort and have limited capacity to handle tasks across diverse domains.
“These manually designed agentic workflows, however, require significant effort and have limited capacity to handle tasks across diverse domains.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Evaluation scores from the independent executor LLM accurately reflect the true quality of workflows.
“In the optimization process, we collect preference pairs from evaluation scores to construct preference data, which are subsequently used to fine-tune the workflow generator via a novel variant of direct preference optimization (DPO) [27].”
The paper relies on this without support.
The executor LLM's scores s_i ∈ [0,1] reliably measure the quality of generated workflows.
“Evaluate each g i (q) with the executor LLM to obtain score s i ∈ [0, 1].”
The paper relies on this without support.
Preference pairs constructed from score differences (s_i > s_j) reflect true preferences between workflows.
“Construct preference pairs D q = ((q, g i (q)), (q, g j (q))) | s i > s j .”
The paper relies on this without support.
The condition C⋆ can be satisfied for generated workflows during optimization.
“until Condition C ⋆ holds for g i (q)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The public test cases used by the Test operator are representative of the hidden test cases for coding tasks.
“Test : Usage : Modify the input solution by testing the solution using public test cases .”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Executors are identified as generators
MinorThe paper says the best performance occurs when GPT-4o or DeepSeek-coder is used as the generator, but its description of this ablation identifies those models as executors; the generators are Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
“The best performance is achieved when GPT-4o or DeepSeek-coder is used as the generator.”
“For the generator ablation, we use Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.For the executor ablation, we employ GPT-4o-mini, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and DeepSeek-coder.”
Conflicting HumanEval result for the same model configuration
MinorTable 1 reports 95.9 for ScoreFlow on HumanEval with GPT-4o-mini, whereas Table 3 reports 95.7 for the corresponding "Ours" configuration. Both tables describe averages of three evaluations.
“ScoreFlow (Ours) 86.0 86.2 95.9 84.7 94.6 64.4 85. 3”
“GPT-4o-mini 95.7 95.1 92.9 90.1 91.6 92.9 92.1 92.9 91.1”
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
- Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. Automated design of agentic systems. In NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Open-World Agents, 2024.
- Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav Santhanam, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, et al. Dspy: Compil- ing declarative language model calls into state-of-the-art pipelines. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
- Shusheng Xu, Wei Fu, Jiaxuan Gao, Wenjie Ye, Weilin Liu, Zhiyu Mei, Guangju Wang, Chao Yu, and Yi Wu. Is dpo superior to ppo for llm alignment? a comprehensive study. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024.
- Yiheng Xu, SU Hongjin, Chen Xing, Boyu Mi, Qian Liu, Weijia Shi, Binyuan Hui, Fan Zhou, Yitao Liu, Tianbao Xie, et al. Lemur: Harmonizing natural language and code for language agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fang, J., Peng, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Yi, X., Zhang, G., Xu, Y., Wu, B., Liu, S., Li, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.07407 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationGao, H.-A., Geng, J., Hua, W., Hu, M., Juan, X., Liu, H., Liu, S., Qiu, J., Qi, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21046 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationEvoAgentX: An Automated Framework for Evolving Agentic Workflows
Wang, Y., Liu, S., Fang, J., & Meng, Z. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-demos.47 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationAt Equal Inference Cost, Multi-Agent Structure Does Not Beat a Single Frozen Agent
Dylan, D., Brennan, A., Murphy, C., O'Sullivan, N., Kelly, C., & Walsh, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.04217
FlowReasoner: Reinforcing Query-Level Meta-Agents
Gao, H., Liu, Y., He, Y., Dou, L., Du, C., Deng, Z., Hooi, B., Lin, M., & Pang, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15257
- Authors
- Wang, Y., Yang, L., Li, G., Wang, M., & Aragam, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.04306
- OpenAlex
- W4407248372
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- LLM agents, multi-agent systems, preference optimization, gradient-based optimization, continuous optimization, question answering, coding, mathematical reasoning, inference cost reduction
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-24.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-24.
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
