Overview
Production Readiness
0.6
Novelty Score
0.3
Cost Impact Score
0.5
Citation Count
0
Why It Matters For Business
Calling LLM-based systems 'agentic' can hide reusable MAS solutions; adopting MAS standards and algorithms reduces engineering risk and speeds integration.
Summary TLDR
The paper argues that the recent wave of "Agentic AI" and "Multiagentic" hype largely repackages well-established concepts from intelligent agents and multi-agent systems (MAS). It reviews the psychological and philosophical origins of "agency", classical agent properties and architectures (reactive, deliberative, hybrid, BDI), and MAS standards (KQML, FIPA). The author maps modern LLM-based agent frameworks (AutoGPT, LangChain, AutoGen, CAMEL, etc.) onto the older MAS literature, warns against terminological confusion and fragmentation, and recommends reusing MAS theory, protocols, and tools while integrating LLM strengths (flexible language understanding, memory, tool use).
Problem Statement
Industry and media have popularized "agentic" and "multiagentic" as if they were new technologies. This risks ignoring decades of MAS research, repeating solved problems (communication, coordination, standards), and fragmenting tooling when we should adapt proven MAS methods to LLM-era systems.
Main Contribution
Critical review showing 'agentic'/'multiagentic' usually map to established intelligent agent and MAS concepts
Concise survey of agency origins (Bandura, Dennett), agent properties, and classic agent architectures (reactive, deliberative, hybrid, BDI)
Mapping modern LLM-based agent frameworks to MAS ideas (communication, planning, tool use, memory)
Practical recommendation: reuse MAS standards and coordination algorithms and integrate LLMs into agent architectures
Key Findings
'Agentic AI' and 'Multiagentic' are mostly new labels for existing concepts (intelligent agents and multi-agent systems).
Large language models give agents much more flexible language understanding and plan decomposition, but they do not change core agent properties.
Standards and communication protocols for agent interoperability already exist (e.g., KQML, FIPA).
Proliferation of LLM-agent frameworks risks repeating past MAS fragmentation and wasted effort.
MAS research provides ready-made solutions for coordination, negotiation, trust and agreement technologies.
Who Should Care
What To Try In 7 Days
Inventory current agent-like components and map them to classic agent architectures (reactive/BDI/hybrid).
Pick one interoperability standard (e.g., message format) and prototype a simple adapter between agent frameworks.
Replace an ad-hoc coordination policy with a known MAS algorithm (auction or consensus) and measure change in task throughput.
Agent Features
Memory
- Episodic logs
- Long-term vector stores
Planning
- Hierarchical task planning
- LLM-based planning as planner module
Tool Use
- API/tool invocation
- Search and calculator tools via prompts
Frameworks
- LangChain
- AutoGen
- Auto-GPT
- Agent orchestration frameworks
Architectures
- Reactive
- Deliberative
- Hybrid
- BDI
Collaboration
- Multi-agent coordination
- Negotiation and agreement technologies
Reproducibility
Open Source Status
- unknown
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
- No empirical evaluation or benchmark data; claims are conceptual and literature-based
- Rapidly evolving LLM ecosystem may add recent examples not covered
- Recommendations are high-level; integrating MAS protocols into specific LLM stacks requires engineering work
When Not To Use
- When you need a new learning algorithm or core ML research
- When building low-level model optimizations or quantization systems
- When the product requires proprietary, closed-stack agent behaviors not compatible with MAS standards
Failure Modes
- Terminology mismatch causes miscommunication between teams
- Framework fragmentation prevents interoperability
- Uncontrolled agent interactions produce loops or degraded performance
- Over-reliance on LLMs for critical decisions causes brittleness
Core Entities
Models
- GPT-3
- GPT-4
- Gemini
- Llama