Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Architecting Agentic Communities using Design Patterns

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Grounded in a formal standard, the paper argues that agentic communities can be architected with verifiable governance: safety, authority, and accountability properties follow from deontic token specifications and can be checked at runtime.

desk verdict A useful pattern catalogue and taxonomy for enterprise agentic AI, but the 'formal verification' claim is asserted, not demonstrated; treat it as a design framework, not a verified formal method. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.03624 v3 pith:SZGQNU5F submitted 2026-01-07 cs.AI

Zoran Milosevic , Fethi Rabhi This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords AgenticAIDesignPatternsODPEnterpriseLanguageDeonticTokensGovernanceAccountabilityMulti-AgentSystemsFormalVerification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that multi-agent systems involving LLM agents, autonomous AI, and humans — which it calls Agentic Communities — can be designed with the same rigor as safety-critical enterprise systems. It builds a catalogue of 46 design patterns, classifies them into three tiers, and grounds the most complex tier in the ISO ODP Enterprise Language formalism. The key move is expressing governance rules as deontic tokens (burden, permit, embargo) that flow between roles, creating traceable accountability chains. The paper claims these token flows make properties like 'no data access without consent' formally provable and runtime-checkable, demonstrated through a clinical trial matching case study. If true, architects would get both practical pattern guidance and machine-checkable compliance guarantees.

What carries the argument

The deontic token mechanism is the load-bearing object: burden, permit, and embargo tokens encode obligations, permissions, and prohibitions, and their flows (creation, transfer, discharge) define accountability chains. The ODP-EL community concept supplies the surrounding structure: roles fillable by AI agents or humans, contracts binding roles through normative relationships, and policies expressed as token constraints. This machinery lets the authors convert design patterns into machine-checkable specifications and claim verifiable governance at runtime.

What would settle it

Instrument the clinical trial matching system at the API and database level to record every patient data access event, and compare this ground truth against the token audit log produced by the deontic runtime; any access event lacking an associated permit token and a discharged consent burden token would falsify the claimed safety property.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ODP-EL community specifications provide a formal semantics for agentic AI governance: patterns instantiate as community templates with roles, deontic constraints, and contracts, where obligations are burden tokens, permissions are permit tokens, and prohibitions are embargo tokens. These tokens are created, transferred, and discharged among participants, forming complete accountability chains. The paper proves, in the sense of formal token analysis, that a clinical trial matching system satisfies safety, authority, prohibition, and accountability properties — for example, that any permit to access patient data must be matched by a discharged consent burden, and that

Load-bearing premise

The verification proofs hold only if every consequential action in the real system is faithfully represented as a deontic token operation that the runtime actually enforces and monitors; if an agent can cause an effect without a corresponding token, the claimed guarantees do not apply to the actual system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Governance rules specified once as community templates can yield machine-checkable guarantees about agent behavior, rather than relying on testing alone.
  • Runtime token monitoring can detect policy violations before they escalate into compliance incidents, shifting audits from periodic to continuous.
  • Human and AI participants can be governed uniformly within the same formal framework, while legal responsibility remains traceable to identifiable principals.
  • Pattern compositions — layered, horizontal, and cross-cutting — map directly to formal community specifications, giving architects a path from sketched design to verifiable architecture.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If token flows are treated as a concurrent process model, the same formal basis could be extended to prove liveness properties (e.g., 'every obligation is eventually discharged or escalated'), not just safety invariants.
  • The framework hints at a potential interoperability standard for cross-organizational agent governance, analogous to how communication protocols standardized message exchange across systems.
  • A concrete stress test would be to build a minimal community where an LLM agent can take side-effectful actions through unmonitored channels (e.g., calling an external API directly) and check whether the token audit log still captures every consequential event — a gap would expose the modeling boundary.
  • The non-transferability of intent, if formalized further, could support stronger legal reasoning about responsibility when an AI agent's internal goal formation diverges from its externally observed obligations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-tier taxonomy for LLM-based systems (LLM Agents, Agentic AI, Agentic Communities), a catalogue of 46 design patterns, a three-step pattern-composition methodology, and a clinical trial matching case study. The authors claim that grounding Agentic Communities in the ISO ODP Enterprise Language (ODP-EL) community formalism provides formal verification capabilities, expressing governance rules through deontic tokens (burden, permit, embargo) and enabling provable safety, authority, prohibition, and accountability properties. The case study translates a three-layer architecture into ODP-EL community specifications with roles, policies, contracts, and enterprise objects, and Section 6.5 states four formal properties that are asserted to be provable and runtime-verifiable.

Significance. If the formal-verification claim were fully substantiated, the paper would make a valuable contribution by bridging practical design-pattern guidance with standards-based governance for enterprise agentic AI. The pattern catalogue, the three-tier taxonomy, and the clinical case study provide useful architectural scaffolding and are presented in a practitioner-accessible way. The paper also gives credit to industrial deployments of deontic-governance ideas. However, the load-bearing claim of formal verification is not currently backed by the manuscript's content: the predicates and proof obligations in Section 6.5 are not given formal semantics, no proof system or machine-checkable artifact is supplied, and Section 8.2 lists formal verification and tooling as future directions. The significance of the paper would improve substantially if the verification claims were either carried through with formal rigor or substantially weakened.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.5 (Formal Properties) and §8.2 (Future Directions)] The central claim that ODP-EL 'enables formal verification of key properties' is asserted rather than demonstrated. The four properties in §6.5 use undefined predicates (permit, burden, embargo, DISCHARGED, REQUIRED, HOLDS) with no model theory, no transition system, no proof rules, and no statement of what 'provable' means. The sentence 'These properties are provable from the community specifications and verifiable at runtime through token monitoring' is therefore unsupported. This is compounded by §8.2, which places 'Formal Verification and Tooling'—including model checking—in Future Directions. Please either supply a concrete formal semantics and proof system, or revise the claims to describe token-bookkeeping checks rather than formal verification.
  2. [§6.4–6.5] The mapping from deontic-token specifications to actual agent behavior is not established. The safety property '∀a: permit(access data, a, p) → ∃c: burden(consent, p) DISCHARGED' is vacuous if an agent can perform an action (e.g., a direct EHR API call) without being mediated by a token-enforcing runtime. Section 6.6 mentions 'separation of control' but this is not integrated into the formal model. The paper needs to either define a runtime enforcement relation that guarantees every action is token-scoped, or explicitly state the assumption as a limitation of the verification claim.
  3. [§6.3 (Towards Intent Modeling)] The formalization of intent is not formal. The formulas such as Intent_agent_i(g,p,c), ∀agent_i,agent_j : Intent_agent_i ≢ Intent_agent_j, and Can_delegate(obligation, agent_i, agent_j) are offered without a semantics for Intent, commitment, or delegation. In particular, 'Intent is non-transferable' is an axiom with no stated justification or characterization in the ODP-EL model. Since this section feeds the later accountability claims, it needs either a precise logical treatment or a clear statement that it is informal conceptual modeling.
  4. [Footnote 7 and §6.3, §6.1] The paper leans on ISO/IEC 15414 Annex C for modal semantics supporting 'verifying governance properties despite unpredictable agentic behaviors,' but Footnote 7 concedes that this annex is informative and 'not yet part of the normative standard.' The contrast between the strong verification language in the abstract and Section 6.5 and this concession is not reconciled. Please clarify the epistemic status of the claimed verification: is it based on the normative standard, on the informative annex, or on a proposed extension?
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains encoding artifacts such as 'ˆ a€”' and inconsistent capitalization (e.g., 'CriteriaMatcheR' vs. 'MatchingAgent' in §6.4). A copyedit pass would reduce distraction.
  2. [§2.2, item (3)] The phrase 'ODP-EL’s machine-checkable specifications' overstates the current content: no machine-checkable artifacts are provided. Rephrase to 'amenable to automated analysis' or similar, unless a tool is supplied.
  3. [Table 2] The catalogue numbering is irregular (skips from #1 to #3, #5, etc.) and the table lists 46 patterns but the count is not immediately verifiable from the visible rows. Please include a total count and consistent numbering.
  4. [§5.3 / Figure 3] Figure 3 is described in terms of colors (blue, orange, purple) but the figure is not reproduced in color in the text. Consider adding textual labels or a legend.
  5. [§8.1] The conclusion repeats the formal-verification claim as though it were established. If the Section 6.5 concerns are addressed, this should be updated; if not, the conclusion should be tempered to match what is actually demonstrated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Formal verification properties in §6.5 are the token policies stipulated in §6.4, so the key verification claim is true by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.4 (Layer 1: FHIR Foundation) and Section 6.5 (Formal Properties and Runtime Verification)]
    "Layer 1: FHIR Foundation (Data Standards Community) ... Normative Constraints (Policies): –permit(read demographics, DataExtractionAgent)∧ burden(verify consent, ConsentManager)—consent required ... Safety Property: “No patient data accessed without consent” ∀a:permit(access data, a, p)→ ∃c:burden(consent, p)DISCHARGED ... These properties are provable from the community specifications and verifiable at runtime through token monitoring"

    The safety property is the Layer 1 policy restated as a quantified formula: Section 6.4 stipulates 'permit(read demographics, DataExtractionAgent)∧ burden(verify consent, ConsentManager)—consent required', and Section 6.5 'proves' '∀a:permit(access data, a, p)→ ∃c:burden(consent, p)DISCHARGED'. The authority and prohibition properties likewise restate Layer 2 policies 'burden(make enrollment decision, Physician)—physician decision obligation' and 'embargo(final decision, ALL AI AGENTS)—AI enrollment decisions prohibited'. No ODP-EL semantics, axioms, or transition system are provided, so 'provable from the community specifications' reduces to checking that the property was already inserted as a policy. The verification result is true by construction, not an independent derivation.

full rationale

The pattern catalogue and three-tier taxonomy are largely non-circular: they build on Sapkota et al. and on established LLM-agent literature, and ODP-EL is an external ISO standard. The clinical case study demonstrates pattern composition rather than proving properties. The circularity is concentrated in the paper's headline verification claim. Section 6.5 presents four 'formal properties' that are quantified restatements of the deontic-token policies already written into the Section 6.4 community specifications, and the only stated evidence is that they are 'provable from the community specifications' — i.e., that the property was stipulated. This is reinforced by the paper's own caveats: Footnote 7 says the ODP-EL modal semantics are informative and 'not yet part of the normative standard', and Section 8.2 lists 'Formal Verification and Tooling' (model checking, tooling) as future work. Those caveats are a support gap rather than an additional circular step. Self-citations [16]-[18] are present but not weighted heavily here: [17] is a textbook for an ISO standard and [18] supports a secondary industrial-viability claim. Overall score 6: the central derivation of formal verification reduces by construction to the token bookkeeping rules, while the taxonomy and catalogue retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the expressiveness of ODP-EL, a specific interpretation of intent, the completeness of the deontic-token abstraction, and the representativeness of the case study. No numeric parameters are fitted; the load-bearing assumptions are conceptual and methodological.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ODP-EL (ISO/IEC 15414) provides a sufficiently expressive and sound formal basis for specifying governance of agentic AI communities.
    Section 2.2 and 6.1 assert that ODP-EL provides 'rigorous, formal based semantics' and 'enables formal verification' without supplying a proof or a demonstrated mapping for agentic AI scenarios.
  • ad hoc to paper Intent is non-transferable: for all agents i,j, Intent_i is not equivalent to Intent_j.
    Section 6.3 states this as a formal axiom ('∀agent i,agent j : Intentagenti ≢ Intentagentj') based on a philosophical/legal stance, not derived from ODP-EL or empirical evidence.
  • domain assumption All governance-relevant actions can be modeled as deontic token operations (permit, burden, embargo).
    Section 6.4 formalizes all community policies as token constraints; the completeness of this abstraction is assumed, not justified.
  • domain assumption The clinical trial matching case study is a valid representation of enterprise agentic communities.
    Section 5 uses a single design exercise to 'validate' the framework, implicitly assuming the scenario's representativeness; no diversity of cases or generalization argument is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Architecting Agentic Communities using Design Patterns." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZGQNU5F

@misc{pith2026260103624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Architecting Agentic Communities using Design Patterns},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZGQNU5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.03624}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLM) and subsequent Agentic AI technologies requires systematic architectural guidance for building sophisticated, production-grade systems. This paper presents an approach for architecting such systems using design patterns derived from enterprise distributed systems standards, formal methods, and industry practice. We classify these patterns into three tiers: LLM Agents (task-specific automation), Agentic AI (adaptive goal-seekers), and Agentic Communities (organizational frameworks where AI agents and human participants coordinate through formal roles, protocols, and governance structures). We focus on Agentic Communities - coordination frameworks encompassing LLM Agents, Agentic AI entities, and humans - most relevant for enterprise and industrial applications. Drawing on established coordination principles from distributed systems, we ground these patterns in a formal framework that specifies collaboration agreements where AI agents and humans fill roles within governed ecosystems. This approach provides both practical guidance and formal verification capabilities, enabling expression of organizational, legal, and ethical rules through accountability mechanisms that ensure operational and verifiable governance of inter-agent communication, negotiation, and intent modeling. We validate this framework through a clinical trial matching case study. Our goal is to provide actionable guidance to practitioners while maintaining the formal rigor essential for enterprise deployment in dynamic, multi-agent ecosystems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.03624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three types of LLM-powered entities and their relationships. Agentic Commu￾nities coordinate heterogeneous participants including LLM Agents, Agentic AI sys￾tems, and human actors through structured protocols, shared infrastructure and agreed and computable governance specification. 2.2 Formal Foundation: ODP-EL Communities As introduced in Section 2.1, Agentic Communities coordinate heterogeneous participantsˆa€”LL… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Applying Design Patterns for Producing an Agentic AI Architecture mandatory in regulated contexts where decision transparency and justifica￾tion are required for compliance documentation. 3. Data Characteristics determine processing pipeline requirements based on data structure, volume, and latency constraints. Structured data pro￾cessing employs data pipeline patterns including Filtering/Triage (#16) for early volu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pattern composition in clinical trial matching system demonstrating vertical composition (Layer 1 → 2 → 3), horizontal composition (patterns within layers), and cross-cutting composition (governance patterns spanning multiple layers). – Governance enforcement: Compliance/Governance (#18) spanning all exter￾nal interactions; Audit Trail (#20) for complete provenance; Access Control (#19) for authorization boundaries … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ISO/IEC IS 15414, Information Technology - Open Distributed Processing - Enter- prise Language 3rd edn (2015), also published as ITU-T Recommendation X.911

    2015

  2. [2]

    In: Conference on Robot Learning

    Ahn, M., Brohan, A., Brown, N., Chebotar, Y., Cortes, O., David, B., Finn, C., Fu, C., Gopalakrishnan, K., Hausman, K., et al.: Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In: Conference on Robot Learning. pp. 287–318. PMLR (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073 (2022)

    Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Kundu, S., Askell, A., Kernion, J., Jones, A., Chen, A., Goldie, A., Mirhoseini, A., McKinnon, C., et al.: Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Artificial Intel- ligence42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)

    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intel- ligence42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)

    1990

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and Communication Policies, 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents

    Colombetti, M.: A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conver- sations. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and Communication Policies, 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents. pp. 21–29 (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    MIT Press (2011)

    Cox, M.T., Raja, A.: Metareasoning: Thinking about thinking. MIT Press (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Contemporary Clinical Trials Com- munications11, 156–164 (2018)

    Fogel, D.B.: Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review. Contemporary Clinical Trials Com- munications11, 156–164 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents: Fipa acl message structure specifica- tion. Tech. Rep. SC00061G, FIPA (2002)

    2002

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Addison-Wesley (1995)

    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    In: Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H

    Hansen, J.V., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.: Normative systems represented as hybrid knowledge bases. In: Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-Agent Systems. Schloss Dagstuhl (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    HL7 International: Fhir release 4.0.1.http://hl7.org/fhir/(2023), accessed: 2025-11-08

    2023

  4. [12]

    Addison-Wesley (2003)

    Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Addison-Wesley (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    International Con- ference on Machine Learning (ICML) pp

    Huang, W., Abbeel, P., Pathak, D., Mordatch, I.: Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. International Con- ference on Machine Learning (ICML) pp. 9118–9147 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    International standard, IEC (2006)

    International Electrotechnical Commission: Iec 62304: Medical device software – software life cycle processes. International standard, IEC (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    International standard, ISO (2018)

    International Organization for Standardization: Iso 26262: Road vehicles – func- tional safety. International standard, ISO (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Software and Systems Modeling24, 741–754 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01243-4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01243-4

    Linington, P.F., Milosevic, Z., Tanaka, A., Dejanovic, I.: Using DSLs to manage consistency in long-lived enterprise language specifications. Software and Systems Modeling24, 741–754 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01243-4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01243-4

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    CRC Press (2011)

    Linington, P.F., Milosevic, Z., Tanaka, A., Vallecillo, A.: Building Enterprise Sys- tems with ODP: An Introduction to Open Distributed Processing. CRC Press (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Agentic AI For Industry (September 2024)

    Milosevic, Z., van Schalkwyk, P.: Part 5 – rules of engagement: Establishing gov- ernance for multi-agent generative systems. Agentic AI For Industry (September 2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    In: Sales, T.P., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A., Pufahl, L., Karastoyanova, D., van Sinderen, M

    Milosevic, Z., van Schalkwyk, P.: Towards responsible digital twins. In: Sales, T.P., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A., Pufahl, L., Karastoyanova, D., van Sinderen, M. 38 Z. Milosevic et al. (eds.) Enterprise Design, Operations, and Computing. EDOC 2023 Workshops. pp. 123–138. Sp...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Harvard Business Review pp

    Minson, J.A., et al.: A smarter way to disagree. Harvard Business Review pp. 110–113 (November–December 2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560 (2023)

    Packer, C., Fang, V., Patil, S.G., Wooders, K., Stoica, I.: Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Springer Verlag (2003)

    Rabhi, F., Gorlatch, S.: Patterns and Skeletons for Parallel and Distributed Com- puting. Springer Verlag (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95) pp

    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Bdi agents: From theory to practice. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95) pp. 312–319 (1995)

    1995

  16. [24]

    Standard, RTCA, Inc

    RTCA: Do-178c: Software considerations in airborne systems and equipment cer- tification. Standard, RTCA, Inc. (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    agentic ai: A concep- tual taxonomy, applications and challenges

    Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K.I., Karkee, M.: Ai agents vs. agentic ai: A concep- tual taxonomy, applications and challenges. Information Fusion126, 103599 (Feb 2026).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599,http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599

    2026

  18. [26]

    XMPRO Blog (January 2025),https://xmpro.com/ industrial-agentic-operations-decisiongraphs/

    van Schalkwyk, P.: Industrial agentic operations need DecisionGraphs, not just context graphs. XMPRO Blog (January 2025),https://xmpro.com/ industrial-agentic-operations-decisiongraphs/

    2025

  19. [27]

    van Schalkwyk, P.: Multi-agent generative systems (MAGS): Industrial AI ar- chitecture.https://xmpro.com/agentic-ai/multi-agent-generative-systems/ (2025), accessed: 2025-11-28

    2025

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761 (2023)

    Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dess ` ı, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., Scialom, T.: Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36(2023)

    Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., Yao, S.: Reflexion: Lan- guage agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36(2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Autonomous Robots8(3), 345–383 (2000)

    Stone, P., Veloso, M.: Multiagent systems: A survey from a machine learning per- spective. Autonomous Robots8(3), 345–383 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    Department of Health and Human Services: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Public Law 104-191 (1996), 45 CFR Parts 160, 162, and 164

    1996

  24. [32]

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Financial Industry Regulatory Au- thority: Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA Regulatory Framework for Algorithmic Trading (2010), sEC Release No. 34-61358; FINRA Rule 3110

    2010

  25. [33]

    Frontiers of Computer Science18(6), 186345 (2024)

    Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Chen, X., Lin, Y., et al.: A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science18(6), 186345 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)

    Washizaki, H., Uchida, H., Khomh, F., Gu´ eh´ eneuc, Y.G.: Systematic literature re- view of machine learning design pattern. In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). pp. 1230–1234. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Weng, L.: Llm powered autonomous agents.https://lilianweng.github.io/ posts/2023-06-23-agent/(June 2023), blog post

    2023

  28. [36]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edn

    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edn. (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155 (2023) Architecting Agentic Communities using Design Patterns 39

    Wu, Q., Bansal, G., Zhang, J., Wu, Y., Li, B., Zhu, E., Jiang, L., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Liu, J., et al.: Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi- agent conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155 (2023) Architecting Agentic Communities using Design Patterns 39

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864 (2023)

    Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al.: The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 (2023)

    Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., Cao, Y.: React: Syn- ergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.