AI Agent Architecture

Existing frameworks for LLM-based agent architectures describe systems from a single perspective: industry guides (Anthropic, Google, LangChain) focus on execution topology -- how data flows -- while cognitive science surveys focus on cognitive function -- what the agent does. Neither axis alone disambiguates architecturally distinct systems: the same Orchestrator-Workers topology can implement Plan-and-Execute, Hierarchical Delegation, or Adversarial Verification -- three patterns with fundamentally different failure modes and design trade-offs. We propose a two-dimensional classification that combines (1) a Cognitive Function axis with seven categories (Perception, Memory, Reasoning, Action, Reflection, Collaboration, Governance) and (2) an Execution Topology axis with six structural archetypes (Chain, Route, Parallel, Orchestrate, Loop, Hierarchy). The resulting 7x6 matrix identifies 28 named patterns, 15 with original names. We demonstrate orthogonality through systematic cross-axis analysis, define eight representative patterns in detail, and validate descriptive coverage across four real-world domains (financial lending, legal due diligence, network operations, healthcare triage). Cross-domain analysis yields five empirical laws of pattern selection governing the relationship between environmental constraints (time pressure, action authority, failure cost asymmetry, volume) and architectural choices. The framework provides a principled, framework-neutral, and model-agnostic vocabulary for AI agent architecture design.

We introduce Orla, a library for constructing and running LLM-based agentic systems. Modern agentic applications consist of workflows that combine multiple LLM inference steps, tool calls, and heterogeneous infrastructure. Today, developers typically build these systems by manually composing orchestration code with LLM serving engines and tool execution logic. Orla provides a general abstraction that separates request execution from workflow-level policy. It acts as a serving layer above existing LLM inference engines: developers define workflows composed of stages, while Orla manages how those stages are mapped, executed, and coordinated across models and backends. It provides agent-level control through three mechanisms: a stage mapper, which assigns each stage to an appropriate model and backend; a workflow orchestrator, which schedules stages and manages their resources and context; and a memory manager, which manages inference state such as the KV cache across workflow boundaries. We demonstrate Orla with a customer support workflow that exercises many of its capabilities. We evaluate Orla on two datasets, showing that stage mapping improves latency and cost compared to a single-model vLLM baseline, while workflow-level cache management reduces time-to-first-token.

General-purpose agents perform tasks in unfamiliar environments without domain-specific manual customization. Yet no study has systematically measured how agent architecture shapes performance across heterogeneous protocols and diverse unfamiliar environments. This is the first systematic study, comparing tool-calling, MCP, code-generation, and CLI agents on the same benchmarks with the same models. Two gaps blocked such a study: existing harnesses require per-benchmark wiring or fixed protocol classes (web for BrowserGym, CLI for Harbor), and benchmarks themselves expect human-authored prompts, context, and integration glue. To enable this study, we contribute (1) a unifying protocol that bridges existing benchmark and agent protocols; (2) an evaluation harness that surfaces any benchmark to any general-purpose agent and backbone model; and (3) the first Open General Agent Leaderboard of agent configurations, a full factorial over 5 agent architectures x 5 backbone LLMs (three closed-source, two open-weight) x 6 benchmarks spanning software engineering, customer service, deep research, and personal assistance. We find that (i) general agents adapt to every tested domain without per-domain customization; (ii) agent architecture choice swings results by up to 12pp within a single model, yet backbone model choice dominates overall performance; (iii) on 4 of 6 tested benchmarks, top general agents are indistinguishable from the leading heavily-customized domain-specific agents; (iv) open-weight models tested exhibit "generality sinks" absent from frontier closed-source models: they consistently collapse on specific agent architectures or benchmarks; (v) a behavioral failure analysis reveals architecture-distinctive error signatures that aggregate scoring cannot discriminate. Code, harness, leaderboard, and traces are at https://www.exgentic.ai.

Agentic systems, AI architectures that autonomously execute multi-step workflows to achieve complex goals, are often built using repeated large language model (LLM) calls for closed-set decision tasks such as routing, shortlisting, gating, and verification. While convenient, this design makes deployments slow and expensive due to cumulative latency and token usage. We propose TabAgent, a framework for replacing generative decision components in closed-set selection tasks with a compact textual-tabular classifier trained on execution traces. TabAgent (i) extracts structured schema, state, and dependency features from trajectories (TabSchema), (ii) augments coverage with schema-aligned synthetic supervision (TabSynth), and (iii) scores candidates with a lightweight classifier (TabHead). On the long-horizon AppWorld benchmark, TabAgent maintains task-level success while eliminating shortlist-time LLM calls, reducing latency by approximately 95% and inference cost by 85-91%. Beyond tool shortlisting, TabAgent generalizes to other agentic decision heads, establishing a paradigm for learned discriminative replacements of generative bottlenecks in production agent architectures.

Agentic AI builds upon Generative AI (GenAI). It constitutes the next major step in the evolution of AI with much stronger reasoning, learning, and interaction capabilities that enable more autonomous behavior to tackle complex, long-running tasks. Since the initial release of ChatGPT 3.5, Generative AI has seen widespread adoption, giving users firsthand experience. However, the distinction between Agentic AI and GenAI remains less well understood. To address this gap, our survey is structured in two parts. In the first part, we compare GenAI and Agentic AI using existing literature, discussing their key characteristics, how Agentic AI remedies limitations of GenAI, and the major steps in GenAI's evolution toward Agentic AI. We also distinguish between early Agentic AI aiming at reasoning and interacting and the increasingly emerging paradigm of self-improving Agentic AI that operates continuously and learns from its experiences by updating itself. This section is intended for a broad audience, including academics in both social sciences and engineering, as well as industry professionals. It provides the necessary insights to comprehend novel applications that are possible with Agentic AI but not with GenAI. In the second part, we deep dive into novel aspects of Agentic AI, including recent developments and practical concerns such as defining agents. Finally, we discuss several challenges that could serve as a future research agenda, while cautioning against risks that can emerge when exceeding human intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) started out with the ambition to reproduce the human mind, but as soon as the sheer scale of that ambition became apparent, it retreated into either studying specialized intelligent behaviours or proposing overarching architectural concepts for interfacing specialized intelligent components---conceived of as agents acting through organizational structures. The agent-based modelling paradigm proved to have interesting applications beyond the original domain, supporting the understanding, simulation, and the assessment of behaviour of socio-economic and legal structures on an aggregate level. Looking at contemporary AI, whereas text completion provides a successful example of specialized behaviour, surprisingly little of the rich foundation of multi-agent systems (MAS) and normative systems research is currently reflected in Agentic AI systems. Addressing this gap, the chapter examines cross-cutting conceptualisations, modelling problems, and design challenges shared by large-scale distributed AI and institutional systems. Three main contributions can be highlighted. First, by tracing the historical trajectory of AI, the chapter identifies an ecological perspective on intelligence, examining both the value and limits of the compression-as-intelligence hypothesis. Second, it shows how moving between internal cognitive mechanisms and external manifestations of agency supports a functional separation of concerns for both individual and collective agency. Third, it argues that epistemological, normative, and value pluralisms are necessary conditions for sustaining the ecological character of intelligence. Furthermore, we indicate how AI techniques can support institutions by modelling social roles, simulating normative interactions, detecting and diagnosing failures, and supporting procedures of review and revision.