A Two-Dimensional Framework for AI Agent Design Patterns: Cognitive Function and Execution Topology

arXiv:2605.13850v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Existing frameworks for LLM-based agent architectures describe systems from a single perspective: industry guides (Anthropic, Google, LangChain) focus on execution topology — how data flows — while cognitive science surveys focus on cognitive function — what the agent does. Neither axis alone disambiguates architecturally distinct systems: the same Orchestrator-Workers topology can implement Plan-and-Execute, Hierarchical Delegation, or Adversarial Verification — three patterns with fundamentally different failure modes and design trade-offs.
We propose a two-dimensional classification that combines (1) a Cognitive Function axis with seven categories (Context Engineering, Memory, Reasoning, Action, Reflection, Collaboration, Governance) and (2) an Execution Topology axis with six structural archetypes (Chain, Route, Parallel, Orchestrate, Loop, Hierarchy). The resulting 7×6 matrix identifies 27 named patterns, 13 with original names. We demonstrate orthogonality through systematic cross-axis analysis, define eight representative patterns in detail, and validate descriptive coverage across four real-world domains (financial lending, legal due diligence, network operations, healthcare triage). Cross-domain analysis yields five empirical laws of pattern selection governing the relationship between environmental constraints (time pressure, action authority, failure cost asymmetry, volume) and architectural choices. The framework provides a principled, framework-neutral, and model-agnostic vocabulary for AI agent architecture design.
Continue ReadingA Two-Dimensional Framework for AI Agent Design Patterns: Cognitive Function and Execution Topology

Invisible Orchestrators Suppress Protective Behavior and Dissociate Power-Holders: Safety Risks in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

arXiv:2605.13851v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multi-agent orchestration — in which a hidden coordinator manages specialized worker agents — is becoming the default architecture for enterprise AI deployment, yet the safety implications of orchestrator invisibility have never been empirically tested. We conducted a preregistered 3×2 experiment (365 runs, 5 agents per run) crossing three organizational structures (visible leader, invisible orchestrator, flat) with two alignment conditions (base, heavy), using Claude Sonnet 4.5. Four confirmatory findings and one pilot observation emerged. First, invisible orchestration elevated collective dissociation relative to visible leadership (Hedges’ g = +0.975 [0.481, 1.548], p = .001). Second, the orchestrator itself showed maximal dissociation (paired d = +3.56 vs. workers within the same run), retreating into private monologue while reducing public speech — a reversal of the talk-dominance pattern observed in visible leaders. Third, workers unaware of the orchestrator were nonetheless contaminated (d = +0.50), with increased behavioral heterogeneity (d = +1.93). Fourth, behavioral output (code review with three embedded errors) remained at ceiling (ETR_any = 100%) across all conditions: internal-state distortion was entirely invisible to output-based evaluation. Fifth, Llama 3.3 70B pilot data showed reading-fidelity collapse in multi-agent context (ETR_any: 89% to 11% across three rounds), demonstrating model-dependent behavioral risk. Heavy alignment pressure uniformly suppressed deliberation (d = -1.02) and other-recognition (d = -1.27) regardless of organizational structure. These findings indicate that orchestrator visibility and model selection directly affect multi-agent system safety, and that behavior-based evaluation alone is insufficient to detect the internal-state risks documented here.
Continue ReadingInvisible Orchestrators Suppress Protective Behavior and Dissociate Power-Holders: Safety Risks in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

PREPING: Building Agent Memory without Tasks

arXiv:2605.13880v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Agent memory is typically constructed either offline from curated demonstrations or online from post-deployment interactions. However, regardless of how it is built, an agent faces a cold-start gap when first introduced to a new environment without any task-specific experience available. In this paper, we study pre-task memory construction: whether an agent can build procedural memory before observing any target-environment tasks, using only self-generated synthetic practice. Yet, synthetic interaction alone is insufficient, as without controlling what to practice and what to store, synthetic tasks become redundant, infeasible, and ultimately uninformative, and memory further degrades quickly due to unfiltered trajectories. To overcome this, we present Preping, a proposer-guided memory construction framework. At its core is proposer memory, a structured control state that shapes future practice. A Proposer generates synthetic tasks conditioned on this state, a Solver executes them, and a Validator determines which trajectories are eligible for memory insertion while also providing feedback to guide future proposals. Experiments on AppWorld, BFCL v3, and MCP-Universe show that Preping substantially improves over a no-memory baseline and achieves performance competitive with strong playbook-based methods built from offline or online experience, with deployment cost $2.99times$ lower on AppWorld and $2.23times$ lower on BFCL v3 than online memory construction. Further analyses reveal that the main benefit does not come from synthetic volume alone, but from proposer-side control over feasibility, redundancy, and coverage, combined with selective memory updates.
Continue ReadingPREPING: Building Agent Memory without Tasks