Overview
POLARIS is a practical blueprint demonstrating governance primitives for enterprise automation, validated on a small synthetic suite and SROIE; production adoption needs policy DB quality and LLM access.
Citations0
Evidence Strength0.70
Confidence0.85
Risk Signals12
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 4/4
Findings with evidence refs: 4/4
Results with explicit delta: 0/4
Reproducibility
Status: No open assets linked
Open source: Unknown
At A Glance
Cost impact: 70%
Production readiness: 60%
Novelty: 60%
Why It Matters For Business
POLARIS adds auditable, policy-gated automation to invoice-like workflows so companies can reduce manual checks while retaining legal and auditability guarantees.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
POLARIS is a modular orchestration system that turns back-office automation into typed plan synthesis plus guarded execution. A planner generates several type-checked DAGs, a rubric-based ReasoningAgent picks a policy-compliant plan, and execution runs under validator-gated checks, a bounded repair loop, and compiled policy guardrails. On document tasks it produces auditable JSON decisions and traces. Reported results: SROIE F1 ≈ 0.81, synthetic extraction F1 ≈ 0.9565, policy violation F1 ≈ 0.8182, anomaly detection precision 1.0 (recall 0.90).
Problem Statement
Enterprise back-office automation needs auditable, policy-aligned, and predictable agent behavior. Existing multi-agent LLM stacks often use untyped I/O, best-of-N sampling, and open-ended retries, which break audit trails, policy gating, and operational guarantees. POLARIS re-casts orchestration as typed planning plus governed execution to meet enterprise requirements.
Main Contribution
POLARIS framework: typed-DAG plan synthesis, rubric selection, validator-gated execution and policy guardrails
CoAPlanner: enforces type-safe, diversity-constrained generation of candidate workflows
Key Findings
High extraction on synthetic invoices
Strong SROIE extraction baseline
Results
| Metric | Value | Baseline | Delta | Split / Dataset | Evidence | Evidence Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synthetic extraction (overall) | precision=0.9453, recall=0.9680, f1=0.9565 | — | — | synthetic invoice suite (160 fields) | Table 1 totals | Table 1 |
| SROIE 4-field extraction | precision=0.8189, recall=0.8045, f1=0.8116 | — | — | SROIE | Table 5 overall | Table 5 |
What To Try In 7 Days
Define typed I/O contracts for one invoice workflow and instrument a JSON normalizer
Run a planner that emits 3–5 type-checked DAG proposals and log them for review
Implement a validator-gated repair loop limited to 2–3 iterations for parser outputs to cut false negatives
Agent Features
Memory
Planning
Tool Use
Frameworks
Is Agentic
Yes
Architectures
Collaboration
Optimization Features
System Optimization
Inference Optimization
Reproducibility
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Evaluations use a small synthetic suite plus SROIE; cross-domain validation is limited
Design relies on proprietary models (GPT-4o, GPT-5) in examples
When Not To Use
Very low-latency real-time systems where LLM latency is unacceptable
Environments without a maintained policy store or vendor baselines
Failure Modes
Parser failures under extreme layout drift can still produce false positives even after repairs
Incorrect or missing policy records can cause wrong blocking or missed violations