Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Michal Orzechowski

Publications and source records attributed to Michal Orzechowski.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

When the Consumer Is an Agent: Execution-Grounded Service-Level Agreements

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly act as service consumers. They select operations and report whether a task is complete. In an asynchronous distributed service, an accepted call or immediate state read does not establish that the required state became observable by its deadline. We introduce execution-grounded completion contracts, which treat completion as a service-level outcome. An independent control plane observes a deadline-bound service-state predicate, admits completion, and directs recovery while the agent performs the task. We evaluate placement and deletion in a live multi-provider data service with heterogeneous models and an injected transfer delay. Across policies, some tasks that missed the deadline were accepted and some that met it were rejected. Under enforcement, accepted completions remained consistent with later observations; all included healthy tasks completed, and unresolved faulted tasks terminated as unverified. The results show that completion of these tasks can be governed by independent observation of service state rather than by the agent's self-assessment.

cs.DC↗

Integrated data, metadata, and paradata management system for 3D Digital Cultural Heritage objects: Workflow automation, federated authentication, and publication

The complexity of high-quality 3D digitised cultural heritage objects creates challenges for existing data management systems as they need to develop metadata management and processing capabilities to provide semantic insight into the interconnectivity of data that constitutes cultural heritage objects. To address these challenges, we propose a global federated authentication and authorisation mechanism, a data and metadata management system, and an integrated engine for designing and executing automated workflows that facilitate the processing of both data and metadata. The solution is evaluated with three distinct 3D digitised cultural objects and presents the complete process from data upload to cultural heritage object publication

cs.DL↗

What Does an Ontology Catch? Curated, LLM-Generated and Data-Derived Ontologies as Checkers of LLM Agents over Knowledge Graphs

LLM agents that answer questions over Web knowledge graphs are increasingly wrapped in checks derived from the graph's ontology, on the assumption that a formal schema makes a reliable judge. Yet a checker can be wrong as well: it can miss errors, and it can flag correct answers and push the agent into "fixing" them. Whether a curated ontology is worth its cost as such a judge, and how it compares with an ontology an LLM writes or a schema mined from the data, is unknown. We make the checker itself the object of study. Across curated, LLM-generated and data-derived ontologies, used as prompt context, as a checker, or both, and across open-weight and proprietary agents on public graphs and a private graph of nearly $10^{9}$ triples, we account for what ontology-derived checks catch and what they wrongly flag. We show how each source trades caught errors against false alarms, how a curated schema used as published can contradict its own data, which errors structural checks miss, and whether combining sources or giving the agent the checker's specific feedback pays off. On UniProt, the curated ontology flags more correct answers than either an ontology derived from the data or one an LLM derives from a summary of the data with masked identifiers. On real agent answers, its flags are only marginally more precise than random flags.

cs.AI↗

From Research Question to Scientific Workflow: Leveraging Agentic AI for Science Automation

Scientific workflow systems automate execution -- scheduling, fault tolerance, resource management -- but not the semantic translation that precedes it. Scientists still manually convert research questions into workflow specifications, a task requiring both domain knowledge and infrastructure expertise. We propose an agentic architecture that closes this gap through three layers: an LLM interprets natural language into structured intents (semantic layer); validated generators produce reproducible workflow DAGs (deterministic layer); and domain experts author ``Skills'': markdown documents encoding vocabulary mappings, parameter constraints, and optimization strategies (knowledge layer). This decomposition confines LLM non-determinism to intent extraction: identical intents always yield identical workflows. We implement and evaluate the architecture on the 1000 Genomes population genetics workflow and Hyperflow WMS running on Kubernetes. In an ablation study on 150 queries, Skills raise full-match intent accuracy from 44% to 83%; skill-driven deferred workflow generation reduces data transfer by 92\%; and the end-to-end pipeline completes queries on Kubernetes with LLM overhead below 15 seconds and cost under $0.001 per query.

cs.AI↗

Towards cloud-native scientific workflow management

Cloud-native is an approach to building and running scalable applications in modern cloud infrastructures, with the Kubernetes container orchestration platform being often considered as a fundamental cloud-native building block. In this paper, we evaluate alternative execution models for scientific workflows in Kubernetes. We compare the simplest job-based model, its variant with task clustering, and finally we propose a cloud-native model based on microservices comprising auto-scalable worker-pools. We implement the proposed models in the HyperFlow workflow management system, and evaluate them using a large Montage workflow on a Kubernetes cluster. The results indicate that the proposed cloud-native worker-pools execution model achieves best performance in terms of average cluster utilization, resulting in a nearly 20\% improvement of the workflow makespan compared to the best-performing job-based model. However, better performance comes at the cost of significantly higher complexity of the implementation and maintenance. We believe that our experiments provide a valuable insight into the performance, advantages and disadvantages of alternative cloud-native execution models for scientific workflows.

cs.DC↗