CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 61Psychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Agentic AI Needs a Systems Theory

Open access
Miehling, Erik, Ramamurthy, Karthikeyan Natesan, Varshney, Kush R., Riemer, Matthew, Bouneffouf, Djallel, Richards, John T., Dhurandhar, Amit, Daly, Elizabeth M., Hind, Michael, Sattigeri, Prasanna, Wei, Dennis, Rawat, Ambrish, Gajcin, Jasmina, Geyer, Werner·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2503.00237arXiv 2503.00237
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The endowment of AI with reasoning capabilities and some degree of agency is widely viewed as a path toward more capable and generalizable systems. Our position is that the current development of agentic AI requires a more holistic, systems-theoretic perspective in order to fully understand their capabilities and mitigate any emergent risks. The primary motivation for our position is that AI development is currently overly focused on individual model capabilities, often ignoring broader emergent behavior, leading to a significant underestimation in the true capabilities and associated risks of agentic AI. We describe some fundamental mechanisms by which advanced capabilities can emerge from (comparably simpler) agents simply due to their interaction with the environment and other agents. Informed by an extensive amount of existing literature from various fields, we outline mechanisms for enhanced agent cognition, emergent causal reasoning ability, and metacognitive awareness. We conclude by presenting some key open challenges and guidance for the development of agentic AI. We emphasize that a systems-level perspective is essential for better understanding, and purposefully shaping, agentic AI systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.00237

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Agentic AI extends the capabilities of traditional AI Agents by enabling multiple intelligent entities to collaboratively pursue goals through structured communication, shared memory, and dynamic role assignment.

    “This emerging class of systems extends the capabilities of traditional AI Agents by enabling multiple intelligent entities to collaboratively pursue goals through structured communication [144-146], shared memory [147,148], and dynamic role assignment [22].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [146]

    Section 4.2 (p. 8) describes decomposing tasks and delegating subtasks to agents according to their capabilities. Section 4.3 (p. 8) also describes one agent assigning a subtask to another. These passages support agent-to-agent assignment, but do not establish dynamic role assignment or changing roles over time. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Agentic AI extends the capabilities of traditional AI Agents by enabling multiple intelligent entities to collaboratively pursue goals through structured communication, shared memory, and dynamic role assignment.

    “This emerging class of systems extends the capabilities of traditional AI Agents by enabling multiple intelligent entities to collaboratively pursue goals through structured communication [146]-[148], shared memory [149], [150], and dynamic role assignment [21].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [148]

    The citation is attached to “dynamic role assignment.” Section 4.2 (p. 8) describes decomposing tasks and delegating subtasks to agents according to their capabilities, which supports task-dependent assignment. It does not explicitly describe dynamically assigning or changing agents’ roles. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Current AI Agents cannot fully satisfy canonical agentic properties such as autonomy, proactivity, reactivity, and social ability.

    “A major limitation of current AI Agents is their inability to fully satisfy the canonical agentic properties defined in foundational literature, such as autonomy, proactivity, reactivity, and social ability [148], [192].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [148]

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes significant limitations of current LLM-based agents, including difficulties interacting with environments, humans, and other agents. Section 2.2 (p. 5) also describes deficiencies in their functional agency. The paper does not assess current agents against the four named canonical properties—autonomy, proactivity, reactivity, and social ability—so that specific characterization is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Miehling, E., Ramamurthy, K. N., Varshney, K. R., Riemer, M., Bouneffouf, D., Richards, J. T., Dhurandhar, A., Daly, E. M., Hind, M., Sattigeri, P., Wei, D., Rawat, A., Gajcin, J., & Geyer, W.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2503.00237
arXiv
2503.00237
OpenAlex
W6929400699
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
agentic AI, systems theory, emergent behavior, emergent risks, agent cognition, causal reasoning, metacognition, agent-environment interaction, multi-agent interaction, AI safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review