Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Scepsy: Serving Agentic Workflows Using Aggregate LLM Pipelines

Marcel Wagenländer, Otto White, Britannio Jarrett, Pedro Silvestre, Yanda Tao, Guo Li, Huanzhou Zhu, Llúis Vilanova, Peter Pietzuch · Apr 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools. Serving such workflows at a target throughput with low latency is challenging because they can be defined using arbitrary agentic frameworks and exhibit unpredictable execution times: execution may branch, fan-out, or recur in data-dependent ways. Since LLMs in workflows often outnumber available GPUs, their execution also leads to GPU oversubscription. We describe Scepsy, a new agentic serving system that efficiently schedules arbitrary multi-LLM agentic workflows onto a GPU cluster. Scepsy exploits the insight that, while agentic workflows have unpredictable end-to-end latencies, the shares of each LLM's total execution times are comparatively stable across executions. Scepsy decides on GPU allocations based on these aggregate shares: first, it profiles the LLMs under different parallelism degrees. It then uses these statistics to construct an Aggregate LLM Pipeline, which is a lightweight latency/throughput predictor for allocations. To find a GPU allocation that minimizes latency while achieving a target throughput, Scepsy uses the Aggregate LLM Pipeline to explore a search space over fractional GPU shares, tensor parallelism degrees, and replica counts. It uses a hierarchical heuristic to place the best allocation onto the GPU cluster, minimizing fragmentation, while respecting network topology constraints. Our evaluation on realistic agentic workflows shows that Scepsy achieves up to 2.4x higher throughput and 27x lower latency compared to systems that optimize LLMs independently or rely on user-specified allocations.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools.
  • Serving such workflows at a target throughput with low latency is challenging because they can be defined using arbitrary agentic frameworks and exhibit unpredictable execution times: execution may branch, fan-out, or recur in data-dependent ways.
  • Since LLMs in workflows often outnumber available GPUs, their execution also leads to GPU oversubscription.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.