Hubbry Logo
Software agentSoftware agentMain
Open search
Software agent
Community hub
Software agent
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Software agent
Software agent
Software agent
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Multi-agent systems
Multi-agent simulation
Agent-oriented programming
Related

In computer science, a software agent is a computer program that acts for a user or another program in a relationship of agency.

The term agent is derived from the Latin agere (to do): an agreement to act on one's behalf. Such "action on behalf of" implies the authority to decide which, if any, action is appropriate.[1][2] Some agents are colloquially known as bots, from robot. They may be embodied, as when execution is paired with a robot body, or as software such as a chatbot executing on a computer, such as a mobile device, e.g. Siri. Software agents may be autonomous or work together with other agents or people. Software agents interacting with people (e.g. chatbots, human-robot interaction environments) may possess human-like qualities such as natural language understanding and speech, personality or embody humanoid form (see Asimo).

Related and derived concepts include intelligent agents (in particular exhibiting some aspects of artificial intelligence, such as reasoning), autonomous agents (capable of modifying the methods of achieving their objectives), distributed agents (being executed on physically distinct computers), multi-agent systems (distributed agents that work together to achieve an objective that could not be accomplished by a single agent acting alone), and mobile agents (agents that can relocate their execution onto different processors).

Concepts

[edit]

The basic attributes of an autonomous software agent are that agents:

  • are not strictly invoked for a task, but activate themselves,
  • may reside in wait status on a host, perceiving context,
  • may get to run status on a host upon starting conditions,
  • do not require interaction of user,
  • may invoke other tasks including communication.
Nwana's Category of Software Agent

The concept of an agent provides a convenient and powerful way to describe a complex software entity that is capable of acting with a certain degree of autonomy in order to accomplish tasks on behalf of its host. But unlike objects, which are defined in terms of methods and attributes, an agent is defined in terms of its behavior.[3]

Various authors have proposed different definitions of agents, these commonly include concepts such as:

  • persistence: code is not executed on demand but runs continuously and decides for itself when it should perform some activity;
  • autonomy: agents have capabilities of task selection, prioritization, goal-directed behavior, decision-making without human intervention;
  • social ability: agents are able to engage other components through some sort of communication and coordination, they may collaborate on a task;
  • reactivity: agents perceive the context in which they operate and react to it appropriately.

Distinguishing agents from programs

[edit]

All agents are programs, but not all programs are agents. Contrasting the term with related concepts may help clarify its meaning. Franklin & Graesser (1997)[4] discuss four key notions that distinguish agents from arbitrary programs: reaction to the environment, autonomy, goal-orientation and persistence.

Intuitive distinguishing agents from objects

[edit]
  • Agents are more autonomous than objects.
  • Agents have flexible behavior: reactive, proactive, social.
  • Agents have at least one thread of control but may have more.[5]

Distinguishing agents from expert systems

[edit]
  • Expert systems are not coupled to their environment.
  • Expert systems are not designed for reactive, proactive behavior.
  • Expert systems do not consider social ability.[5]

Distinguishing intelligent software agents from intelligent agents in AI

[edit]
  • Intelligent agents (also known as rational agents) are not just computer programs: they may also be machines, human beings, communities of human beings (such as firms) or anything that is capable of goal-directed behavior.
(Russell & Norvig 2003)

Impact of software agents

[edit]

Software agents may offer various benefits to their end users by automating complex or repetitive tasks.[6] However, there are organizational and cultural impacts of this technology that need to be considered prior to implementing software agents.

Organizational impact

[edit]

Work contentment and job satisfaction impact

[edit]

People like to perform easy tasks providing the sensation of success unless the repetition of the simple tasking is affecting the overall output. In general implementing software agents to perform administrative requirements provides a substantial increase in work contentment, as administering their own work does never please the worker. The effort freed up serves for a higher degree of engagement in the substantial tasks of individual work. Hence, software agents may provide the basics to implement self-controlled work, relieved from hierarchical controls and interference.[7] Such conditions may be secured by application of software agents for required formal support.

Cultural impact

[edit]

The cultural effects of the implementation of software agents include trust affliction, skills erosion, privacy attrition and social detachment. Some users may not feel entirely comfortable fully delegating important tasks to software applications. Those who start relying solely on intelligent agents may lose important skills, for example, relating to information literacy. In order to act on a user's behalf, a software agent needs to have a complete understanding of a user's profile, including his/her personal preferences. This, in turn, may lead to unpredictable privacy issues. When users start relying on their software agents more, especially for communication activities, they may lose contact with other human users and look at the world with the eyes of their agents. These consequences are what agent researchers and users must consider when dealing with intelligent agent technologies.[8]

History

[edit]

The concept of an agent can be traced back to Hewitt's Actor Model (Hewitt, 1977) - "A self-contained, interactive and concurrently-executing object, possessing internal state and communication capability."[citation needed]

To be more academic, software agent systems are a direct evolution of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). MAS evolved from Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI), Distributed Problem Solving (DPS) and Parallel AI (PAI), thus inheriting all characteristics (good and bad) from DAI and AI.

John Sculley's 1987 "Knowledge Navigator" video portrayed an image of a relationship between end-users and agents. Being an ideal first, this field experienced a series of unsuccessful top-down implementations, instead of a piece-by-piece, bottom-up approach. The range of agent types is now (from 1990) broad: WWW, search engines, etc.

Examples of intelligent software agents

[edit]
See also: Intelligent agent

Buyer agents (shopping bots)

[edit]

Buyer agents[9] travel around a network (e.g. the internet) retrieving information about goods and services. These agents, also known as 'shopping bots', work very efficiently for commodity products such as CDs, books, electronic components, and other one-size-fits-all products. Buyer agents are typically optimized to allow for digital payment services used in e-commerce and traditional businesses.[10]

User agents (personal agents)

[edit]

User agents, or personal agents, are intelligent agents that take action on your behalf. In this category belong those intelligent agents that already perform, or will shortly perform, the following tasks:

  • Check your e-mail, sort it according to the user's order of preference, and alert you when important emails arrive.
  • Play computer games as your opponent or patrol game areas for you.
  • Assemble customized news reports for you. There are several versions of these, including CNN.
  • Find information for you on the subject of your choice.
  • Fill out forms on the Web automatically for you, storing your information for future reference
  • Scan Web pages looking for and highlighting text that constitutes the "important" part of the information there
  • Discuss topics with you ranging from your deepest fears to sports
  • Facilitate with online job search duties by scanning known job boards and sending the resume to opportunities who meet the desired criteria
  • Profile synchronization across heterogeneous social networks

Monitoring-and-surveillance (predictive) agents

[edit]

Monitoring and surveillance agents are used to observe and report on equipment, usually computer systems. The agents may keep track of company inventory levels, observe competitors' prices and relay them back to the company, watch stock manipulation by insider trading and rumors, etc.

Service monitoring

For example, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has an agent that monitors inventory, planning, schedules equipment orders to keep costs down, and manages food storage facilities. These agents usually monitor complex computer networks that can keep track of the configuration of each computer connected to the network.

A special case of monitoring-and-surveillance agents are organizations of agents used to automate decision-making process during tactical operations. The agents monitor the status of assets (ammunition, weapons available, platforms for transport, etc.) and receive goals from higher level agents. The agents then pursue the goals with the assets at hand, minimizing expenditure of the assets while maximizing goal attainment.

Data-mining agents

[edit]

This agent uses information technology to find trends and patterns in an abundance of information from many different sources. The user can sort through this information in order to find whatever information they are seeking.

A data mining agent operates in a data warehouse discovering information. A 'data warehouse' brings together information from many different sources. "Data mining" is the process of looking through the data warehouse to find information that you can use to take action, such as ways to increase sales or keep customers who are considering defecting.

'Classification' is one of the most common types of data mining, which finds patterns in information and categorizes them into different classes. Data mining agents can also detect major shifts in trends or a key indicator and can detect the presence of new information and alert you to it. For example, the agent may detect a decline in the construction industry for an economy; based on this relayed information construction companies will be able to make intelligent decisions regarding the hiring/firing of employees or the purchase/lease of equipment in order to best suit their firm.

Networking and communicating agents

[edit]

Some other examples of current intelligent agents include some spam filters, game bots, and server monitoring tools. Search engine indexing bots also qualify as intelligent agents.

  • User agent - for browsing the World Wide Web
  • Buyer Agent [11]- As of 2025, advanced AI agents enable agentic commerce, autonomously handling product discovery, price comparison, and transactions in platforms like OpenAI integrations[12].
  • Mail transfer agent - For serving E-mail, such as Microsoft Outlook. Why? It communicates with the POP3 mail server, without users having to understand POP3 command protocols. It even has rule sets that filter mail for the user, thus sparing them the trouble of having to do it themselves.
  • SNMP agent
  • In Unix-style networking servers, httpd is an HTTP daemon that implements the Hypertext Transfer Protocol at the root of the World Wide Web
  • Management agents used to manage telecom devices
  • Crowd simulation for safety planning or 3D computer graphics,
  • Wireless beaconing agent is a simple process hosted single tasking entity for implementing wireless lock or electronic leash in conjunction with more complex software agents hosted e.g. on wireless receivers.
  • Use of autonomous agents (deliberately equipped with noise) to optimize coordination in groups online.[13]

Software development agents (aka software bots)

[edit]
Main article: Software bot

Software bots are becoming important in software engineering.[14]

Security agents

[edit]

Agents are also used in software security application to intercept, examine and act on various types of content. Example include:

  • Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Agents[15] - examine user operations on a computer or network, compare with policies specifying allowed actions, and take appropriate action (e.g. allow, alert, block). The more comprehensive DLP agents can also be used to perform EDR functions.
  • Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) Agents - monitor all activity on an endpoint computer in order to detect and respond to malicious activities
  • Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) Agents - similar to DLP Agents, however examining traffic going to cloud applications

Design issues

[edit]

Issues to consider in the development of agent-based systems include

  • how tasks are scheduled and how synchronization of tasks is achieved
  • how tasks are prioritized by agents
  • how agents can collaborate, or recruit resources,
  • how agents can be re-instantiated in different environments, and how their internal state can be stored,
  • how the environment will be probed and how a change of environment leads to behavioral changes of the agents
  • how messaging and communication can be achieved,
  • what hierarchies of agents are useful (e.g. task execution agents, scheduling agents, resource providers ...).

For software agents to work together efficiently they must share semantics of their data elements. This can be done by having computer systems publish their metadata.

The definition of agent processing can be approached from two interrelated directions:

  • internal state processing and ontologies for representing knowledge
  • interaction protocols – standards for specifying communication of tasks

Agent systems are used to model real-world systems with concurrency or parallel processing.

  • Agent Machinery – Engines of various kinds, which support the varying degrees of intelligence
  • Agent Content – Data employed by the machinery in Reasoning and Learning
  • Agent Access – Methods to enable the machinery to perceive content and perform actions as outcomes of Reasoning
  • Agent Security – Concerns related to distributed computing, augmented by a few special concerns related to agents

The agent uses its access methods to go out into local and remote databases to forage for content. These access methods may include setting up news stream delivery to the agent, or retrieval from bulletin boards, or using a spider to walk the Web. The content that is retrieved in this way is probably already partially filtered – by the selection of the newsfeed or the databases that are searched. The agent next may use its detailed searching or language-processing machinery to extract keywords or signatures from the body of the content that has been received or retrieved. This abstracted content (or event) is then passed to the agent's Reasoning or inferencing machinery in order to decide what to do with the new content. This process combines the event content with the rule-based or knowledge content provided by the user. If this process finds a good hit or match in the new content, the agent may use another piece of its machinery to do a more detailed search on the content. Finally, the agent may decide to take an action based on the new content; for example, to notify the user that an important event has occurred. This action is verified by a security function and then given the authority of the user. The agent makes use of a user-access method to deliver that message to the user. If the user confirms that the event is important by acting quickly on the notification, the agent may also employ its learning machinery to increase its weighting for this kind of event.

Bots can act on behalf of their creators to do good as well as bad. There are a few ways which bots can be created to demonstrate that they are designed with the best intention and are not built to do harm. This is first done by having a bot identify itself in the user-agent HTTP header when communicating with a site. The source IP address must also be validated to establish itself as legitimate. Next, the bot must also always respect a site's robots.txt file since it has become the standard across most of the web. And like respecting the robots.txt file, bots should shy away from being too aggressive and respect any crawl delay instructions.[16]

Notions and frameworks for agents

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Software agent

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A software agent is a self-contained designed to perceive its environment, make decisions, and perform actions autonomously to achieve predefined goals on behalf of a user or another . These agents operate persistently without requiring continuous human intervention, distinguishing them from traditional software by their ability to delegate high-level tasks and adapt to dynamic conditions. The concept of software agents emerged from the field of in the late 1970s and gained prominence in the 1990s, building on foundational models like Carl Hewitt's Actor formalism, which emphasized concurrent, computational entities. Key characteristics defining agenthood include autonomy, where agents control their own actions and internal state without direct human oversight; social ability, enabling interaction with other agents and humans to collaborate on tasks; reactivity (or responsiveness), allowing timely and response to environmental changes; and pro-activeness, which drives goal-directed behavior and initiative-taking beyond mere reactions. These properties, formalized in influential works from the mid-1990s, provide a framework for designing agents that exhibit intelligent, flexible behavior in complex systems. Software agents vary in sophistication and application, ranging from simple reactive agents that respond to stimuli without internal planning to deliberative agents employing symbolic reasoning for long-term goal pursuit. Common types include interface agents for user assistance, mobile agents that migrate across , and collaborative agents that coordinate in multi-agent systems to solve distributed problems. They have been applied in domains such as , electronic commerce, computer games, and process , where their enhances and . Ongoing continues to integrate learning capabilities, enabling agents to improve performance over time through .

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition

A software agent is defined as an autonomous entity that perceives its environment through sensors and acts upon that environment through actuators, selecting actions to maximize its expected performance measure in pursuit of designated goals. This framework, central to , views agents as programs or systems capable of rational behavior by processing perceptual inputs to generate appropriate outputs. At its core, a software agent comprises key components: mechanisms to gather environmental , processes to evaluate options against goals, action execution via interfaces with the environment, and often learning capabilities to improve performance over time through adaptation or experience. These elements enable the agent to function independently within its operational context, whether in simulated or real-world settings. The scope of software agents encompasses both reactive agents, which respond directly to environmental stimuli, and deliberative agents, which engage in and reasoning to anticipate states. Key defining properties include , allowing operation without constant human intervention; , enabling goal-directed initiative; and social ability, facilitating interaction with other agents or users. Reactivity, the capacity to perceive and timely respond to environmental changes, further supports these traits. Software agents range from simple implementations, such as rule-based controllers mimicking basic feedback loops like a coded , to more advanced intelligent variants that incorporate sophisticated reasoning and learning. While simple agents suffice for straightforward tasks, intelligent agents exhibit greater flexibility and adaptability, distinguishing them in complex, dynamic environments.

Key Characteristics

Software agents are distinguished by several core properties that enable them to function effectively in dynamic environments. Central to their is , the capacity to make decisions and take actions independently without requiring continuous human oversight, often guided by predefined goals to achieve specific objectives. This property allows agents to control their internal states and behaviors, distinguishing them from passive scripts that depend on explicit user directives. Complementing autonomy are reactivity and pro-activeness, which together provide flexibility in responding to and influencing the environment. Reactivity enables agents to perceive changes in their surroundings through sensors or data inputs and respond in real-time, such as a monitoring agent detecting system anomalies and initiating alerts or corrections. Pro-activeness, on the other hand, empowers agents to anticipate future states and initiate actions proactively to pursue goals, rather than merely reacting to stimuli—for instance, an agent might predict inventory shortages and reorder supplies ahead of demand spikes. These traits ensure agents exhibit goal-directed behavior in partially observable or uncertain settings. Social ability further enhances agent functionality by facilitating interactions with other agents, humans, or systems in multi-agent environments, often through standardized communication protocols like agent-communication languages. This property supports , , and coordination, as seen in distributed systems where agents exchange information to optimize collective outcomes, such as in . Meanwhile, adaptability and learning allow agents to evolve over time by incorporating techniques, refining their decision-making based on experience and feedback; learning agents, for example, adjust strategies through to improve performance in evolving scenarios. Finally, underpins agent behavior, defined as selecting actions that maximize expected given the agent's percepts, , and goals, thereby achieving optimal or near-optimal results. In practice, this often manifests as , where agents operate under computational constraints and incomplete information in complex real-world environments, balancing efficiency with effectiveness rather than pursuing perfect solutions. These characteristics collectively enable software agents to address tasks requiring , , and interaction beyond traditional programming paradigms.

Historical Development

Early Concepts and Origins

The early concepts of software agents emerged from pre-1950s theoretical foundations in and , which provided the intellectual groundwork for autonomous computational entities. Norbert Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine defined as the study of control and communication in machines and living organisms, emphasizing feedback loops to enable self-regulation and adaptation—key principles for systems that could perceive, act, and adjust independently. Complementing this, Alan Turing's 1936 paper "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the " introduced the , a formal that demonstrated how mechanical processes could simulate any algorithmic behavior, influencing later ideas of agents as rule-following automata capable of in dynamic environments. During the 1950s and 1960s, these ideas manifested in pioneering AI projects that prototyped agent-like behaviors. John McCarthy's 1959 paper "Programs with " proposed the "advice-taker," a hypothetical program designed to solve problems by manipulating sentences in predicate calculus, incorporating external advice as declarative rules to deduce actions and improve performance without requiring knowledge of its internal structure—representing an early blueprint for reasoning agents that learn from instructions. This vision advanced through practical implementations, such as the Shakey project at Stanford Research Institute (1966–1972), where software integrated , , and planning algorithms to enable the robot to navigate, map environments, and execute goal-directed tasks autonomously, marking the first demonstration of a mobile system combining perception, reasoning, and action. The 1970s and 1980s brought further refinement, particularly through distributed AI and , where the term "agent" gained traction for describing independent computational units. Carl Hewitt's 1977 paper "Viewing Control Structures as Patterns of Passing Messages" formalized the , portraying computation as a network of autonomous actors that communicate via asynchronous messages to solve problems collaboratively, providing a theoretical foundation for distributed agents in concurrent and decentralized settings. Concurrently, initial applications in simulation and control systems emerged, exemplified by precursors to expert systems like (developed from 1965 onward), which used rules and to generate and evaluate hypotheses for molecular structures in , illustrating early agentic capabilities in scientific problem-solving and automated decision-making. By the late 1980s, these elements coalesced in distributed AI research, where agents were conceptualized as proactive entities in multi-agent simulations for tasks like and coordination.

Evolution in the Digital Age

The marked the rise of software agents alongside the expansion of the , transitioning theoretical concepts into practical digital implementations. Mobile agents, capable of migrating across networks to perform tasks autonomously, emerged as a key innovation, exemplified by Telescript, a programming language developed by and introduced in 1994 to enable secure, mobile code execution on remote devices. This period also saw the formalization of multi-agent systems (MAS) through standards like those from the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA), established in 1996 to promote interoperability among heterogeneous agents in distributed environments. Seminal works, such as Michael Wooldridge and Nicholas R. Jennings' 1995 paper "Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice," provided foundational frameworks for understanding agent autonomy, perception, and interaction, influencing subsequent research in distributed AI. In the 2000s, software agents integrated deeply with web services and the , enhancing and . Agents leveraged ontologies for representation, particularly with the (), standardized by the W3C in 2004, which enabled semantic reasoning in web-based agent interactions. This era also featured OWL-S, an extension for describing web services semantically, allowing agents to compose and invoke services dynamically. Embedded agents appeared in consumer devices, such as the iRobot Roomba vacuum cleaner launched in 2002, which used reactive software agents for navigation and obstacle avoidance in physical environments. The 2010s witnessed an AI boom that propelled software agents through advances in , particularly (RL). DeepMind's , released in 2016, exemplified RL agents by mastering the game of Go through self-play and policies, achieving superhuman performance and demonstrating scalable decision-making in complex domains. Concurrently, conversational agents gained prominence with Apple's in 2011, an early voice-activated assistant integrating for task delegation and user interaction. These developments shifted agents from isolated systems to interactive, learning entities embedded in everyday applications. By the 2020s, large language models (LLMs) transformed software agents into versatile, goal-oriented systems, with frameworks like LangChain (introduced in 2022) enabling modular agent construction using LLM chains for planning and execution. Auto-GPT, launched in 2023, represented an early LLM-powered autonomous agent capable of iterative task decomposition without constant human input, sparking widespread experimentation in agentic AI. Agents proliferated in cloud computing environments, leveraging scalable infrastructure for distributed operations, as outlined in AWS guidance on agent evolution. Emerging 2025 trends include decentralized agents integrated with blockchain for secure, peer-to-peer coordination, enhancing autonomy in Web3 ecosystems. This period also emphasized shifts toward hybrid human-AI agents, where agents augment human decision-making through collaborative interfaces, as explored in recent multi-agent system reviews.

Conceptual Distinctions

Agents vs. Traditional Programs and Objects

Software agents differ fundamentally from traditional programs in their level of and interaction with the environment. Traditional programs, often implemented as deterministic scripts, execute a fixed sequence of instructions in response to direct user input or predefined triggers, lacking the ability to perceive or adapt to changes independently. In contrast, software agents operate autonomously toward user-defined goals, continuously monitoring their environment, making decisions, and adjusting behaviors without constant human intervention. This goal-oriented nature enables agents to handle dynamic scenarios, such as proactively detecting and responding to unexpected events, whereas traditional programs remain reactive and rigid. For instance, a traditional program for calculation processes input data according to hardcoded rules to produce a one-time output, requiring manual each time changes occur. A software agent, however, might continuously monitor financial accounts, analyze spending patterns in real time, and adapt strategies—such as suggesting deductions or alerting to compliance risks—based on evolving data and goals. Compared to objects in (OOP), software agents extend beyond mere encapsulation and inheritance by exhibiting proactive, dynamic behaviors in situated environments. OOP objects are passive entities that respond predictably to method calls through predefined interfaces, maintaining state within their boundaries but without inherent initiative or environmental awareness. Agents, by contrast, possess their own thread of control, enabling them to initiate actions, engage in ongoing interactions via rich communication protocols, and even migrate across systems to pursue objectives. Furthermore, agents can learn and modify their behavior at the instance level in response to environmental feedback, a capability not native to static OOP objects. This distinction is rooted in the theoretical foundation of agents as "situated" entities, which emphasize real-time, improvisational activity within a dynamic context rather than abstract, plan-based characteristic of traditional programs or objects. In the seminal Pengi , Agre and Chapman (1987) demonstrated how situated agents achieve complex, adaptive performance through simple, environment-coupled mechanisms, bypassing the need for explicit internal models or rigid scripts.

Agents vs. Expert Systems and Broader AI Agents

Software agents differ from expert systems primarily in their degree of , , and interaction with dynamic environments. Expert systems, such as developed in 1976, are rule-based programs designed for narrow, domain-specific problem-solving, relying on static knowledge bases and human-provided inputs without proactive sensing or to changing conditions. In contrast, software agents operate autonomously in open environments, sensing their surroundings, pursuing goals over time, and adjusting behaviors based on feedback, which enables and flexibility beyond the rigid, synchronous reasoning of expert systems. While broader AI agents encompass a wide range of entities—including biological systems, robotic embodiments like ' Herbert, and forms—software agents represent a specific subset confined to computational implementations in code, emphasizing digital execution without physical interaction. This distinction highlights the digital-only focus of software agents, which are situated within virtual environments and act through software mechanisms, whereas AI agents may integrate hardware for real-world sensing and actuation. Franklin and Graesser (1996) define autonomous agents broadly as "a system situated within and a part of an environment that senses that environment and acts on it, over time, in pursuit of its own agenda," positioning software agents as a key implementation category within this . Along the intelligence spectrum, range from simple, rule-based variants—such as reactive thermostats that respond to immediate stimuli without —to more advanced, learning-enabled ones that incorporate and goal-oriented , though they do not presuppose full AI rationality or human-like . This gradation allows software agents to bridge basic automation with intelligent behavior, distinguishing them from the purely declarative, non-learning nature of expert systems while remaining a focused subset of the diverse AI agent landscape.

Architectures and Design Principles

Agent Architectures

Software agent architectures provide the structural frameworks for designing systems that perceive their environment, make decisions, and act autonomously to achieve goals. These paradigms range from simple reactive models to complex deliberative and hybrid designs, each balancing reactivity, planning, and adaptability based on computational constraints and application needs. Reactive architectures emphasize direct mapping from environmental stimuli to responses, avoiding explicit internal representations or to enable fast, real-time operation in dynamic settings. A seminal example is the subsumption architecture, introduced by in 1986, which organizes behaviors into layered finite-state machines where higher layers can suppress (subsumption) lower ones to prioritize urgent actions, such as obstacle avoidance in mobile robots. This approach suits embedded systems requiring robustness without deliberation, as demonstrated in early robotic implementations. Deliberative architectures, in contrast, incorporate symbolic reasoning and to model the agent's internal state and goals explicitly. The Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) model, developed by Rao and Georgeff in the early , structures agents around three core components: beliefs representing the agent's knowledge of the world, desires as potential goals or options, and intentions as committed plans derived from desires via reasoning. This rational framework enables agents to deliberate over actions by filtering desires into feasible intentions, supporting applications in complex, goal-oriented environments like automated systems. Hybrid architectures integrate reactive and deliberative elements to leverage the strengths of both, often through layered designs that allow low-level reactivity for immediate responses alongside higher-level . The InteRRaP architecture, proposed by Müller in the mid-1990s, exemplifies this by dividing agent functionality into three layers—social (interaction with others), reactive ( patterns), and (deliberative achievement)—enabling flexible control in multi-agent scenarios such as cooperative problem-solving. In BDI architectures, decision-making follows rational agent theory, where the agent selects the action aa that maximizes expected : U(a)=arg⁡max⁡a∑sP(s∣a)⋅U(s),U(a) = \arg\max_a \sum_{s} P(s \mid a) \cdot U(s), with U(s)U(s) denoting the of state ss and P(s∣a)P(s \mid a) the probability of reaching ss given action aa. This equation derives from the principle that a , facing uncertainty, chooses actions to optimize performance measures over possible outcomes, as formalized in foundational AI texts; the summation computes the expected value, ensuring intentions commit to high-reward plans. Modern extensions to these architectures in the increasingly incorporate neural networks for enhanced perception and learning, particularly in handling like or images, while retaining core deliberative or hybrid structures for decision-making. For instance, neural components augment belief updates in BDI agents by processing sensory inputs via models, improving adaptability in real-world software agents integrated with large language models.

Frameworks and Implementation Models

Software agents are often developed using agent-oriented programming (AOP) languages that emphasize concepts like , reactivity, and social ability. One seminal AOP language is AgentSpeak, introduced in the mid-1990s specifically for implementing belief-desire-intention (BDI) agents. AgentSpeak(L), formalized in 1995, provides a logical, framework where agents are programmed through beliefs, plans, and events, enabling declarative specifications of agent behavior in multi-agent systems. This language has influenced subsequent extensions, such as AgentSpeak(ER) for encapsulation and AgentSpeak(PL) for probabilistic beliefs via Bayesian networks, facilitating robust under . Practical implementation of software agents relies on dedicated platforms that provide middleware for communication, coordination, and deployment. The Java Agent DEvelopment Framework (JADE), released in 2000, is a widely adopted open-source platform for building FIPA-compliant multi-agent systems (MAS), offering tools for agent lifecycle management, message passing, and directory services to ensure interoperability. For Python-based development, SPADE (Smart Python Agent Development Environment), emerging in the early 2010s, leverages XMPP for instant messaging protocols, allowing agents to interact seamlessly with both other agents and human users in distributed environments. More recently, LangGraph, introduced in 2024 by LangChain and reaching its stable 1.0 version in October 2025, serves as a low-level orchestration framework tailored for large language model (LLM)-based agents, enabling the construction of stateful, graph-structured workflows with features like durable state persistence and human-in-the-loop support for complex, resilient agent applications. In 2024, the "Agent Design Pattern Catalogue" introduced a collection of 18 architectural patterns for designing foundation model-based AI agents, analogous to the software design patterns in the Gang of Four book, providing reusable solutions for common challenges in agent development. Key interaction models in software agent development include protocols for and task allocation in MAS. The Contract Net Protocol, originally proposed in 1980 by Reid G. Smith, formalizes a high-level communication mechanism where a manager agent announces tasks, and potential contractor agents bid through to secure contracts, promoting efficient distributed problem-solving. This protocol, evolved from earlier ideas in distributed AI, remains foundational for agent coordination, with implementations in various frameworks to handle dynamic . Implementing software agents in distributed environments presents challenges, particularly , where coordinating numerous agents across networks requires robust to manage latency, , and synchronization. The (ROS), initiated in 2007, addresses these by providing a flexible suite for agent-like robotic components, facilitating , , and modular coordination in real-time systems. Such mitigates bottlenecks in large-scale deployments, ensuring agents can operate reliably in heterogeneous settings. As of 2025, advancements in agentic workflows emphasize enhanced mechanisms through integration with vector databases, enabling agents to store and retrieve semantic embeddings of past interactions for improved context awareness and long-term reasoning. Frameworks like LangGraph now commonly incorporate vector stores such as Pinecone or Weaviate to persist agent states, allowing scalable retrieval in LLM-driven applications without overwhelming computational resources. This integration has become standard for building adaptive, memory-augmented agents that maintain coherence over extended interactions.

Types and Examples

Autonomous and Personal Agents

Autonomous and personal agents represent a class of software agents designed to operate independently on behalf of individual users, handling routine tasks and providing personalized support without constant human oversight. These agents exhibit high degrees of autonomy by perceiving user needs, making decisions, and executing actions in dynamic environments, often integrating natural language processing and machine learning to adapt over time. Unlike reactive systems that respond only to explicit inputs, personal agents proactively anticipate requirements, such as by monitoring calendars or preferences to initiate actions unprompted. A prominent example of personal agents is virtual assistants like , which was launched in May 2016 as an evolution from earlier Google voice technologies, initially integrated into devices like the smartphone and later expanded to smart speakers and wearables. By the , these assistants evolved into multimodal systems capable of processing voice, text, visual, and even gesture inputs, enabling more intuitive interactions such as analyzing images for recommendations or combining audio queries with on-screen visuals for complex tasks. This progression has allowed agents to support diverse personal activities, from managing daily schedules to providing contextual advice, enhancing user productivity while maintaining a focus on individual utility. Buyer and shopping agents exemplify autonomous personal agents in , automating price comparisons and negotiations to optimize purchases for users. One early instance is PriceGrabber, founded in 1999 as a price-comparison platform that aggregates offers from multiple retailers, allowing users to delegate search tasks for the best deals without manual effort. In modern contexts, AI-driven shopping agents leverage to negotiate dynamically, as demonstrated in experimental models where buyer agents learn to propose counteroffers and adapt strategies to secure lower prices in simulated scenarios, balancing user budgets with seller constraints. These agents autonomously evaluate market data, predict optimal timing, and execute transactions, reducing for consumers. Key autonomy features in personal agents include task capabilities, where users assign high-level goals, and the agent breaks them into subtasks, such as scheduling meetings by checking availability, sending invitations, and sending reminders without further input. Recommendation systems further illustrate this by proactively suggesting actions based on historical , like curating lists or itineraries aligned with user preferences, learned through ongoing interaction. These features enable seamless integration into daily life, with agents handling interruptions or changes autonomously to ensure reliability. IBM's Watson serves as an early precursor to personal agents, debuting in through its victory on the Jeopardy! quiz show, which showcased its natural language understanding and question-answering prowess, laying groundwork for assistant-like applications in healthcare and . By 2025, Watson variants within the watsonx platform have incorporated advanced privacy-focused features, such as encrypted prompt processing and data isolation in environments, ensuring user interactions remain secure without third-party exposure, thus addressing ethical concerns in personal agent deployment. This evolution highlights how foundational AI systems have matured into privacy-centric tools for individual empowerment.

Collaborative and Communication Agents

Collaborative and communication agents are software entities engineered to interact and coordinate with other agents or systems in networked or distributed settings, facilitating for complex tasks that exceed the scope of solitary agents. These agents emphasize through standardized messaging, enabling , , and joint in dynamic environments. A foundational protocol for such communication is the Agent Communication Language (ACL), specified by the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) in 1997, which supports via performative acts like inform, request, and propose to ensure among heterogeneous agents. This language underpins agent dialogues by defining message structure, including sender, receiver, content, and , allowing agents to perform speech acts that align with their social abilities in multi-agent interactions. In multi-agent systems (MAS), coordination protocols enable agents to synchronize actions for applications such as resource auctions and . For instance, auction-based MAS allow agents to bid competitively for shared resources, as demonstrated in models where vehicles or traffic signals participate in Vickrey-style auctions to resolve intersection conflicts and minimize delays. Similarly, in , multi-agent reinforcement learning frameworks coordinate distributed agents controlling traffic lights, achieving improvements in throughput by learning cooperative policies without central oversight. Hierarchical coordination emerged in the 1990s through holonic MAS, inspired by the Holonic Manufacturing Systems (HMS) project initiated in 1994, where holons—autonomous, cooperative subunits—form recursive hierarchies to manage manufacturing workflows, such as order holons delegating tasks to resource holons for flexible production scheduling. Practical examples illustrate these principles in action. agents, exemplified by SpamAssassin released in 2001, operate in distributed setups where multiple agents exchange metadata on email patterns to collaboratively detect and quarantine spam, integrating rule-based heuristics with network-shared blacklists. In swarm robotics simulations, agents communicate locally via or radio signals to achieve emergent behaviors; the Kilobot platform, developed for scalable collectives, enables hundreds of simple agents to self-organize for tasks like through neighbor-to-neighbor messaging. By 2025, advancements in have introduced privacy-preserving collaborative agents within MAS, where distributed agents train shared models without exchanging raw data, as in the framework that uses multi-agent synthesis to autonomously configure federated systems for applications. These developments enhance and in decentralized environments, building on ACL-like protocols for secure aggregation of model updates.

Specialized Agents (Monitoring, Security, and Development)

Specialized agents in monitoring, security, and development domains leverage to perform targeted tasks, such as real-time surveillance, threat mitigation, and code assistance, enhancing system reliability without constant human oversight. These agents often integrate for adaptive decision-making, distinguishing them from general-purpose tools by their focus on niche operational efficiency. Monitoring and predictive agents detect anomalies and forecast issues in dynamic environments, particularly in network traffic and (IoT) ecosystems. For instance, Snort, an open-source network intrusion detection system (IDS) developed in , uses rule-based signatures to monitor packet streams for malicious patterns, alerting administrators to potential breaches in real time. In the , predictive maintenance agents in IoT settings analyze to anticipate equipment failures, employing AI models to predict remaining useful life and schedule interventions proactively. These agents, structured around core modules for , , and notification, reduce downtime in industrial applications through early . Security agents extend monitoring capabilities with proactive defenses, including honeypots and adaptive firewalls that evolve against emerging threats. Honeypots serve as decoy systems to attract and study attackers, logging interactions to refine intrusion detection without risking production assets, as seen in deployments that minimize false positives compared to traditional IDS. Adaptive firewalls incorporate to dynamically adjust rules based on traffic patterns, classifying anomalies with accuracies exceeding 95% using models like for real-time threat blocking. Data-mining agents, integrated with toolkits like since the , enhance security by discovering hidden patterns in logs, such as unusual access behaviors, through clustering and algorithms that support forensic analysis. The rise of self-healing security agents post-2020 has addressed escalating cyber threats, with AI-driven systems autonomously detecting, isolating, and repairing vulnerabilities, such as patching endpoints without manual intervention. These agents use to adapt responses, improving resilience in enterprise networks amid incidents like surges. Development agents automate software creation and validation, streamlining workflows in continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines. GitHub Copilot, released in 2021 by GitHub and OpenAI, acts as an AI pair programmer, suggesting code completions and functions based on context, boosting developer productivity in supported editors. Auto-testing agents in CI/CD, such as those leveraging AI for test case generation and execution, integrate with pipelines to run parallel checks and self-correct failures, reducing manual debugging in agile environments. By analyzing code changes and historical data, these agents ensure higher test coverage and faster release cycles, with frameworks enabling autonomous iteration on defects.

Applications and Societal Impacts

Organizational and Economic Effects

Software agents have profoundly influenced organizational structures by automating repetitive workflows, enabling businesses to reallocate toward higher-value activities. (RPA) agents, a prominent category of software agents, mimic actions to handle rule-based tasks such as and , thereby reducing manual labor intensity. According to a 2024 report, 30% of enterprises are projected to automate more than half of their network activities by 2026, up from under 10% in mid-2023, demonstrating the accelerating adoption of such agents for operational efficiency. This shift allows organizations to streamline processes across departments, fostering agile decision-making and reducing errors in complex environments like and HR. Economically, software agents drive substantial cost savings while posing challenges related to displacement. In e-commerce, AI agents manage personalized recommendations and customer interactions, optimizing inventory and marketing efforts to lower operational expenses. McKinsey analysis indicates that agentic AI in retail could enable autonomous transactions and hyperpersonalization, yielding significant gains in . For instance, these agents can reduce costs by enhancing and route optimization, with broader AI implementations projected to save the global sector up to $1.5 trillion annually by 2030. However, in routine sectors such as administrative support and , the deployment of agents contributes to job displacement, as substitutes for labor in predictable tasks; estimates that AI could affect nearly 300 million full-time jobs globally, necessitating reskilling initiatives to mitigate . Adoption trends highlight the integration of multi-agent systems in supply chains, where coordinated agents enhance resilience and efficiency. These systems involve multiple specialized agents collaborating to manage inventory, predict disruptions, and optimize in real time. A notable example is Amazon's use of in warehouse sortation centers, where agents allocate resources across hundreds of robotic units to minimize delays and reduce unsorted packages, improving throughput in high-volume fulfillment operations. Such implementations have become standard in retail and . Looking ahead, the economic impact of agentic software agents is poised for exponential growth. PwC projects that AI, including advanced agent systems, could add up to $15.7 trillion to global GDP by 2030 through productivity enhancements and new consumption patterns, equivalent to a 14% increase over baseline forecasts. This contribution underscores the transformative potential of agents in reshaping economic models, from cost-efficient automation to innovative business ecosystems. As of 2025, reports indicate growing enterprise adoption of agentic AI, with investments accelerating in multi-agent frameworks for supply chain optimization.

Social, Cultural, and Ethical Implications

Software agents have significantly influenced work contentment by automating repetitive tasks, thereby allowing employees to focus on more creative and fulfilling aspects of their roles. A study involving administrative and HR professionals found that generative AI tools, which function as software agents, reduced time spent on routine activities, leading to increased reported enjoyment of these tasks. However, this automation has also raised concerns about , where over-reliance on agents diminishes workers' manual skills and problem-solving abilities in foundational tasks, potentially leading to reduced job and long-term dissatisfaction. Culturally, software agents, particularly AI companions, are reshaping social norms by integrating into everyday interactions and . For instance, AI companions used in and platforms can normalize reliance on non-human entities for emotional support, altering expectations around relationships and potentially fostering isolation if they substitute genuine social bonds. This dependency culture extends to daily life, where autonomous personal agents handle routine decisions like scheduling or recommendations, creating a broader societal shift toward convenience-driven behaviors that may erode independent decision-making skills over time. Ethical challenges posed by software agents include in decision-making processes, which can perpetuate . In , recommendation agents have been observed to favor products based on skewed training data, such as suggesting luxury items predominantly to higher-income demographics while limiting options for underrepresented groups, thereby reinforcing socioeconomic divides. erosion arises from agents' continuous monitoring of user behaviors to personalize services, often without adequate , leading to unauthorized and heightened risks. Additionally, remains elusive in cases of autonomous failures, such as an agent making erroneous financial decisions, where liability is unclear between developers, deployers, and users, complicating redress for affected parties. As of 2025, regulatory efforts address these implications through frameworks like the EU AI Act, enacted in 2024, which classifies certain software agents as high-risk systems and mandates transparency measures, including disclosure of operational limitations and risk assessments, to ensure ethical deployment and user trust.

References

  1. http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/michael.wooldridge/pubs/iee-review96.pdf
  2. https://www.sce.carleton.ca/netmanage/docs/AgentsOverview/ao.html
  3. https://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~sklar/teaching/f05/alife/notes/almeida-JenningsWooldridge.pdf
  4. https://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/
  5. https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/michael.wooldridge/pubs/ker95.pdf
  6. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~russell/aima1e/chapter02.pdf
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437029700026X
  8. https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph-pdf/2254528/book_9780262355902.pdf
  9. https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/mcc59.pdf
  10. https://ethw.org/Milestones:SHAKEY:_The_World%25E2%2580%2599s_First_Mobile_Intelligent_Robot%2C_1972
  11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(77)90033-9
  12. http://web.mit.edu/6.034/www/6.s966/dendral-history.pdf
  13. https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/co/2025/10/11178129/2ah7yFVZDR6
  14. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-58418-3.pdf
  15. https://www.langchain.com/
  16. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/agentic-ai-foundations/evolution.html
  17. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2025/10/19/ai-agents-could-betray-cryptos-core-promise-a-few-are-fighting-back/
  18. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3712003
  19. https://site.ieee.org/pes-mas/agent-technology/agent-concepts/
  20. https://cacm.acm.org/research/agents-that-buy-and-sell/
  21. https://www.investopedia.com/ai-business-taxes-8621438
  22. https://controllerscouncil.org/the-rise-of-ai-agents-in-finance-preparing-controllers-for-autonomous-workflows/
  23. https://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2002_05/column4/
  24. https://aaai.org/papers/00268-aaai87-048-pengi-an-implementation-of-a-theory-of-activity/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2464549/
  26. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/dyna/v78n168/a21v78n168.pdf
  27. https://agents.umbc.edu/introduction/jennings98.pdf
  28. https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs631/papers/franklingraesser96agents.pdf
  29. https://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/AIM-864.pdf
  30. https://cdn.aaai.org/ICMAS/1995/ICMAS95-042.pdf
  31. https://jmvidal.cse.sc.edu/library/muller93a.pdf
  32. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0031845
  33. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5930301/
  34. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/375735.376120
  35. https://github.com/javipalanca/spade
  36. https://www.langchain.com/langgraph
  37. https://blog.langchain.com/langchain-langgraph-1dot0/
  38. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10467
  39. https://www.reidgsmith.com/The_Contract_Net_Protocol_Dec-1980.pdf
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221509636_The_Evolution_of_the_Contract_Net_Protocol
  41. https://ai.stanford.edu/~ang/papers/icraoss09-ROS.pdf
  42. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-agent-memory
  43. https://www.salesforce.com/ca/agentforce/ai-agents/autonomous-agents/
  44. https://www.digitaltrends.com/wearables/what-is-google-assistant/
  45. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44427-025-00002-7
  46. https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/54467-56
  47. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.00073
  48. https://www.glean.com/perspectives/ai-agents-for-repetitive-low-value-tasks
  49. https://www.ibm.com/watson
  50. https://dataplatform.cloud.ibm.com/docs/content/wsj/analyze-data/fm-security.html?context=wx
  51. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00018/OC00018A.pdf
  52. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstreams/3fef041d-a2ae-465e-8ef4-33fba215936c/download
  53. https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/shimon.whiteson/pubs/kuyerecml08.pdf
  54. https://holobloc.com/papers/hannover.pdf
  55. https://spamassassin.apache.org/
  56. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11141466
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921889013001474
  58. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14512
  59. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/lisa99/full_papers/roesch/roesch.pdf
  60. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/14/8/329
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394861219_Intelligent_Agents_for_Enhanced_Predictive_Maintenance_and_Equipment_Reliability_in_Smart_Manufacturing
  62. https://usa.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/what-is-a-honeypot
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391475644_ML-Powered_Firewall_for_Adaptive_Threat_Detection_and_Real-Time_Attack_Prevention
  64. https://www.kdd.org/exploration_files/p2V11n1.pdf
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225896101_Data_Mining_and_Agent_Technology_a_fruitful_symbiosis
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392663570_AI_Driven_Self-Healing_Cybersecurity_Systems_with_Agentic_AI_for_Adaptive_Threat_Response_and_Resilience
  67. https://swisscognitive.ch/2025/03/18/ai-in-cyber-defense-the-rise-of-self-healing-systems-for-threat-mitigation/
  68. https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/introducing-github-copilot-ai-pair-programmer/
  69. https://www.elastic.co/search-labs/blog/ci-pipelines-claude-ai-agent
  70. https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/257481/preprint_pdf/88a6adbd4853e5ad881d77efcd83f527.pdf
  71. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-09-18-gartner-says-30-percent-of-enterprises-will-automate-more-than-half-of-their-network-activities-by-2026
  72. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-agentic-commerce-opportunity-how-ai-agents-are-ushering-in-a-new-era-for-consumers-and-merchants
  73. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-revolutionizing-ecommerce-logistics-efficiency-cost-carlos-camacho
  74. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent.html
  75. https://www.amazon.science/publications/multi-agent-reinforcement-learning-for-resource-allocation-in-large-scale-robotic-warehouse-sortation-centers
  76. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/analytics/assets/pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-the-prize-report.pdf
  77. https://hbr.org/2024/06/how-gen-ai-can-make-work-more-fulfilling
  78. https://citsci.syr.edu/sites/default/files/GAI_and_skills.pdf
  79. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-05536-x
  80. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/through-the-chat-window-and-into-the-real-world-preparing-for-ai-agents/
  81. https://www.columbusconsulting.com/insights/identifying-ai-bias-and-ai-bias-in-the-retail-industry/
  82. https://merage.uci.edu/news/2024/10/How-AI-Affects-Product-Recommendation-Bias.html
  83. https://muhammad--ehsan.medium.com/the-privacy-and-security-risks-of-autonomous-ai-agents-acaa36c5a985
  84. https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/ai-machine-learning-and-big-data-laws-and-regulations/autonomous-ai-who-is-responsible-when-ai-acts-autonomously-and-things-go-wrong/
  85. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/13/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.