PaR stays on the observed cost-accuracy frontier, matches a sink-frontier heuristic in accuracy at comparable cost and a faithful FrugalGPT cascade at lower cost, and cuts cost 44% against all-frontier routing while giving up 2.9 points of accuracy.
Abstract
Running large language model (LLM) agents in production gets expensive fast. A frontier model (the largest, most capable tier) is accurate but can cost 25 times what a small model costs per token, and the gap compounds once a workflow chains several calls together. Planner-as-Router (PaR) attacks this from a different angle. Instead of leaving model-tier selection to some component downstream, it folds the choice into planning itself. As the planner breaks a query into subtasks, it also assigns each one a model size tier (small, mid, or frontier, ordered by capability and price), so the dependencies between subtasks are visible before any specialist runs. Unlike per-call routers such as cascade routing, which look at one node at a time, PaR sees the whole workflow up front and needs no separate router model or training data. We evaluate PaR with EntBench, a benchmark of 54 enterprise agentic tasks across seven classes, graded by actually running the generated Structured Query Language (SQL) and MongoDB queries against live databases. Over 1,157 evaluations spanning eight routers and three seeds, PaR stays on the observed cost-accuracy frontier. It matches a sink-frontier heuristic (frontier model on terminal nodes only) in accuracy at comparable cost and a faithful FrugalGPT cascade at lower cost, and cuts cost 44% against all-frontier routing while giving up 2.9 points of accuracy. Several accuracy gaps fall inside the plus-or-minus six-point confidence interval of a 54-task study, so we frame PaR's advantage as frontier position rather than a clean accuracy win. We also report a preliminary observation, not a validated result: a small pilot hints that cheap routing may carry a hidden compounding penalty on compositional workflows, which we frame as a hypothesis for future measurement. PaR, EntBench, and all evaluation code are open source.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
Consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts are found.
D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· Journal of Systems and Softw...· 236 citations· ⚡13
The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed, which helped develop an agile development approach for mobile application development.
P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al.· Conference on Object-Oriente...· 225 citations· ⚡18
GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...
Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al.· arXiv.org· 216 citations· ⚡17
A study with 42 participants investigates the relationship between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving skills of software developers and offers support for the claim that happy developers are indeed better problem solvers in terms of their analytical abilities.
D. Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson· PeerJ· 216 citations· ⚡13
An algorithm is proposed which leverages disentangled semantic factors to generate adversarial perturbation by altering controlled semantic attributes to fool the learner towards various "adversarial" targets.
Haonan Qiu, Chaowei Xiao, Lei Yang et al.· arXiv.org· 208 citations· ⚡17