Cited by 1Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Machine Learning and Data ClassificationData Stream Mining Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Agentic AI Meets Data Engineering: Toward Self-Directed, Interpretable, and Balanced Pipelines

Peddisetti, Srikanth·2025·The International Journal of Computational Mathematical Ideas

Abstract

The Agentic AI framework represents a significant advancement in data engineering by unifying automation, interpretability, and adaptability within a single intelligent system. Unlike traditional approaches, which struggle to autonomously adjust to dynamic data environments or provide transparent reasoning, Agentic AI integrates four synergistic agents: an AutoML agent for model selection and tuning, a neuro-symbolic agent for interpretable inference, a generative agent leveraging GANs for rare event synthesis, and an agentic planner that dynamically orchestrates decisions using reinforcement learning. Experimental evaluation on diverse datasets including credit card fraud detection, breast cancer diagnosis, and industrial sensor failure demonstrated the framework’s superior performance, achieving an F1-score of 0.91, 94% rule fidelity, and a reduced adaptation time of 85 seconds. These results significantly surpass baseline AutoML, standalone neuro-symbolic systems, and GAN-based models. The generative component improved minority class representation, while the neuro-symbolic engine provided rule-based explanations closely aligned with the model’s predictions. The agentic planner enabled real-time model drift detection and automatic retraining, ensuring continuous optimization. Collectively, this framework offers a powerful, self-improving pipeline capable of transforming static data processes into adaptive, goal-directed, and explainable workflows suitable for real-world, high-stakes applications.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.70153/ijcmi/2025.17202

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 1

Metadata

Authors
Peddisetti, S.
Corresponding author
Peddisetti, Srikanth
Venue
The International Journal of Computational Mathematical Ideas
Published
2025-01-01
Volume
17
Issue
02
Pages
17313
ISSN
0974-8652 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414188522
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Computational Mathematical Ideas (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Stream Mining Techniques
Keywords
agentic AI, data engineering pipelines, automated machine learning, model interpretability, generative adversarial networks, reinforcement learning, model drift detection, credit card fraud detection, breast cancer diagnosis

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