Explore/benchmark/Multi-Agent Routing as Set-Valued Prediction: A WildChat Benchmark and Cost-Aware Evaluation
M

Ananto Nayan Bala, Faisal Muhammad Shah/Multi-Agent Routing as Set-Valued Prediction: A WildChat Benchmark and Cost-Aware EvaluationUnknown

Tool and agent routing from natural-language prompts is naturally a set-valued prediction problem: a single query may require multiple agents, while over-selection increases execution cost. The benchmark introduced here is derived from WildChat and contains 3,000 prompts over a fixed 12-agent catalog, with AI-assisted heuristic labels under a fixed schema and controlled rebalancing for multi-label evaluation. The evaluation protocol combines set-level metrics (Precision, Recall, F1, Jaccard, and Exact Match), latency, an execution-oriented capability-coverage simulation, and a constrained weighted-routing setting based on ordinal agent-cost tiers. Compared methods include nearest-neighbor matching, linear multilabel classification, dependency-aware baselines, a fine-tuned encoder, deterministic weighted post-scoring via Weighted Agent Routing (WAR), and a zero-shot LLM baseline. Results show that supervised routers substantially outperform nearest-neighbor and zero-shot LLM routing. The fine-tuned encoder achieves the strongest unconstrained set accuracy, while the linear multilabel model provides the strongest practical baseline. In the constrained setting, the weighted routing layer improves utility when applied on top of strong supervised scorers, with the largest gain observed for Encoder+WAR. Overall, the benchmark and evaluation protocol support reproducible study of accuracy-cost trade-offs in fixed-catalog multi-agent routing.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 4d ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed4d ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
48 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
48Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 90 days0 +0.0%
30d90d1y
latest release
Commit activity · 52 weeksActive contributor activity
LowHigh
JunSepDecMarNow
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

48
Score 48/100
Below average

Alternatives

C
crewai
26.1k · Multi-Agent
87
A
autogen
42.7k · Multi-Agent
71
S
smolagents
11.2k · Coding
84
O
openai-agents-python
9.4k · Multi-Agent
81
Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler4d ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing