cs.AIAug 2, 2026

From AI Technical Debt to Agentic Technical Debt: A Systematic Mapping of Root Causes and Manifestations in Agentic AI Systems

Authors: Muhammad Tukur, Hayatullahi B. Adeyemo, Tao Chen, Nour Ali, Anis Zarrad, Marco Agus, Rick Kazman, Rami Bahsoon

Abstract

The emergence of Agentic AI systems, characterized by autonomous reasoning, multi-agent collaboration, tool orchestration, adaptive decision-making, and persistent memory, represents a fundamental shift from traditional AI pipelines to dynamic software ecosystems. While AI Technical Debt (AITD) has been widely studied in machine learning and software engineering, existing models assume static, component-level architectures and fail to capture the dynamic and emergent behaviors of agentic environments. To address this gap, this paper introduces Agentic Technical Debt (AgTD), defined as technical debt that emerges, accumulates, propagates, and amplifies due to the autonomous and collaborative nature of Agentic AI systems. Building on our prior systematic scoping review of 31 AITDs across seven root-cause categories, we employ a theory-informed transformation methodology to reinterpret these debts in Agentic AI through direct transformation, contextual transformation, and manifestation expansion. We present the first systematic mapping of established AITDs to their agentic manifestations, showing how conventional debts evolve into system-level liabilities, including memory inconsistencies, orchestration fragility, cascading failures, and unsafe autonomous decision-making. Our findings show that technical debt extends beyond software artifacts to encompass agent behaviors, coordination mechanisms, and interactions among agents, tools, and execution environments. We further examine its implications for AI Trust, Risk, and Security Management (AI TRiSM), highlighting impacts on trustworthiness, governance, security, operational resilience, and Sustainability Technical Debt. Overall, this work establishes AgTD as a foundational software engineering construct and provides a transformation framework, taxonomy, and research agenda for managing technical debt in autonomous multi-agent AI systems.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 27, 2026cs.AI

Governing Technical Debt in Agentic AI Systems

Agentic AI systems are increasingly being explored as production infrastructure: they reason over multiple steps, call tools, act through workflows, and adapt through memory and feedback. These systems create governance challenges that are not fully captured by traditional software or predictive ML technical debt. We define Agentic Technical Debt as the accumulated liability created when prompts, memory, tool schemas, orchestration graphs, control policies, and observability routines are patched together faster than they can be validated, standardized, and governed. We define Stochastic Tax as the recurring operating burden of keeping probabilistic agent behavior within acceptable bounds. The distinction matters: debt is a stock of design and governance liability, while the tax is a flow of operating cost that arises because stochastic agents act through tools and workflows. We outline how managers can make both visible through lightweight dashboards and governance controls.
Muhammad Zia Hydari, Raja Iqbal, Narayan Ramasubbu
GovernanceAgentic SystemsOrchestration
AskPDF
Jul 25, 2026cs.SE

On AI Safety and Security Technical Debt in Engineering AI-Enabled Systems

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education. While these systems offer powerful data-driven and adaptive capabilities, their complexity, rapid evolution, and dependence on dynamic data pipelines introduce new forms of engineering liability collectively referred to as AI Technical Debts (AITDs). AITDs arise from root causes spanning data governance, model implementation, algorithm design, architectural decisions, operational processes, documentation practices, and testing adequacy. Unlike conventional technical debt, many AITDs are latent and propagate across tightly coupled AI pipelines, leading to maintenance challenges, reliability degradation, and heightened safety or security risks. Guided by the principles of AI Trust, Risk, and Security Management (AI TRiSM), this study reinterprets technical debt through the interconnected dimensions of trustworthiness, focusing on AI safety and security technical debts. We conduct a systematic review of 60 primary studies and identify 31 distinct types of AITD, which are organized into a root-cause-oriented taxonomy comprising seven classes. The analysis examines how these debts map to 18 trust-related concerns, including 6 safety hazards and 12 security vulnerabilities. To support mitigation, the review synthesizes 34 actionable guidelines (8 safety and 26 security) targeting the prevention, detection, and reduction of AITDs across the AI lifecycle. Building on these findings, we introduce AITD-MAP, an integrated framework that connects the AITD taxonomy, quality and risk impacts, and mitigation strategies into a unified structure for risk-aware AI engineering. The framework aims to assist AI software engineers in making AI safety and security technical debts visible, understanding their root causes, and mitigating their presence.
Muhammad Tukur, Hayatullahi B. Adeyemo, Tao Chen +5
Artificial Intelligence SafetyEngineeringArtificial Intelligence Systems
AskPDF
May 26, 2026cs.AI

Modeling Agentic Technical Debt and Stochastic Tax: A Standalone Framework for Measurement, Simulation, and Dashboarding

Agentic AI systems combine probabilistic reasoning with delegated action through tools, context, memory, orchestration, and external workflow integration. This note develops a formal and managerially usable model that distinguishes Agentic Technical Debt from Stochastic Tax. Agentic Technical Debt is a stock of accumulated design and governance liability. Stochastic Tax is a recurring flow of operating burden that arises when stochastic agents are used in business workflows. The two constructs are related, but they are not the same: debt can amplify the tax, while the tax can remain positive even when debt is minimized. The note starts from a compact dashboard expression, expands it into a fuller structural model, defines all variables and parameters, shows how each cost category can be estimated from operational data, and illustrates the framework with an accounts-payable simulation and companion spreadsheet.
Muhammad Zia Hydari, Raja Iqbal, Narayan Ramasubbu
Workflow Automation and OptimizationPayment NetworksStochastic
AskPDF