Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

From Multi-Agent Systems and the Semantic Web to Agentic AI: A Unified Narrative of the Web of Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Three decades of agent-web research form a single directional migration of semantic effort—from platform, to data, to learned model—and that migration predicts each era's failures and its open problems.

desk verdict A genuinely useful three-generation survey whose central 'predictive' thesis is overstated; the generation-invariant challenges the authors themselves define undercut the claim that open problems follow from the locus of semantic effort. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10644 v4 pith:WXPVTXF5 submitted 2025-07-14 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CRcs.HCcs.MA

Tatiana Petrova (1) , Boris Bliznioukov (1) , Aleksandr Puzikov (1) , Radu State (1) ((1) SEDAN SnT , University of Luxembourg , Luxembourg , Luxembourg) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.CRcs.HCcs.MA
keywords WebofAgentsAgenticAIMulti-AgentSystemsLargeLanguageModelsSemanticAgentInteractionProtocolsModelContextProtocolGovernance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is a narrative survey built around one organizing claim: across three decades, agent-interoperability research has moved the location of meaning in a fixed order, from agent platforms (the FIPA-era multi-agent systems of the 1990s), to externally annotated data (the Semantic Web of the 2000s), to the learned weights of large language models (the current agentic-AI era). The authors call the middle-to-latest step the semantics-in-data $\rightarrow$ semantics-in-models shift and argue it is predictive rather than merely descriptive: each generation's adoption failures and its unresolved open problems follow from where that generation put its semantic effort. If the claim holds, today's pain points—non-verifiable tool descriptions, ephemeral agent identity, centralised discovery, consent propagation across delegation chains, and a liability vacuum—are structural costs of the current model-side choice, not incidental engineering gaps. The survey supports the thesis with a four-dimensional comparative framework applied to sixteen systems, a bibliometric time series of publication share across the three generations, and coverage of the 2024–2026 institutional wave of protocols, payment-network standards, and regulation. A sympathetic reader would care because the framework turns a scattered history into a testable prediction: the next migration should restore verifiability, in a phase the paper calls semantics-in-verified-contracts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the four-dimensional comparative framework (semantic foundation, communication paradigm, locus of intelligence, discovery mechanism), used to classify sixteen representative systems from 1995 to 2026. Its four dimensions are chosen to expose whether a generation's architecture is internally aligned; the paper's Lesson 1 states that adoption at open-web scale requires mutual compatibility of all four dimensions, and a mismatch on any one is enough to prevent it. The same framework also carries the central identity of the paper, the semantic-effort migration: platform $\rightarrow$ data $\rightarrow$ model, made concrete in a three-lane chronology and a publication-share series. It does the work of turning 'where the meaning lives' into a measurable, comparable variable, and it grounds the prediction that the next migration will run toward semantics-in-verified-contracts.

What would settle it

One concrete observation that would settle whether the central claim is right: by 2028, check whether at least half of publicly registered MCP servers require signed tool manifests and whether reported deployment failures become dominated by contract-enforcement gaps rather than semantic ambiguity. Failing either marker would contradict the paper's prediction of a migration to semantics-in-verified-contracts; additionally, if a Generation III open problem is found that demonstrably stems from data-annotation costs rather than model-side non-verifiability, the predictive link between locus and failure modes would be broken.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Web of Agents has not been three separate research programmes (multi-agent systems, the Semantic Web, LLM agents) but one continuous project whose defining variable is the locus of semantic effort. Generation I (FIPA-era MAS, roughly 1995–2005) encoded meaning in the platform: performative speech acts, belief-desire-intention logic, and platform-side coordination services. Generation II (the Semantic Web, roughly 2001–2012) moved meaning into external data structures—RDF/OWL knowledge graphs—so that comparatively simple agents could reason over annotated graphs. Generation III (LLM-based agents, 2020s onward) moved meaning into the model: data is left largely unannotated and a large language model interprets natural-language tool descriptions at runtime. The authors claim this trajectory is directional and predictive: the loss each migration incurred becomes the dominant unresolved problem of the next phase, so the current era's inability to verify what a model thinks a tool does is the direct price of semantics-in-models. They further predict that the next phase, semantics-in-verified-contracts, will trade some flexibility back for verifiability through signed tool manifests, cryptographically verifiable agent cards, and runtime pre/post-condition checks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-selected bibliometric queries—'FIPA ACL' or 'agent communication language', 'semantic web service', and 'agentic AI'—and the qualitative reading of the historical record genuinely track where each era located its semantic effort; if those proxies are biased, the empirical confirmation of the migration pattern weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the migration thesis is right, the current generation's open problems are structural, not incidental: non-verifiable tool semantics, ephemeral identity, centralised discovery, cross-boundary consent asymmetry, and liability gaps will not disappear just from better protocol design.
  • Protocols that align on three dimensions but fail on a fourth are unlikely to survive at open-web scale; the prediction applies to current and future agent-interoperability protocols.
  • Centralised discovery will keep recapitulating the same failure: the current registries (the MCP Registry, agent-card hosting) will face the same fate as the FIPA Directory Facilitator and UDDI unless discovery becomes structurally decentralised.
  • The first credible economic substrate for agent commerce—provided by incumbent payment networks entering the space—makes the other pillars (security, trust, governance) negotiable for the first time in three decades.
  • The next phase, semantics-in-verified-contracts, is already visible in early markers; if it consolidates by 2028, model flexibility will be constrained by machine-checkable contracts without losing the large language model's adaptive reach.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the migration is genuinely directional, the same logic suggests that improvements in model capability will push agents toward interpreting human-facing interfaces rather than structured APIs, deepening the verifiability bottleneck and making runtime contract enforcement a central research area rather than a peripheral one.
  • The framework is directly transferable as an evaluation tool: any new agent protocol can be scored on the four dimensions, and its open-web prospects judged by whether it repeats a known mismatch (for example, decentralised discovery without persistent identity).
  • The bibliometric evidence should be read cautiously: 'agentic AI' only became common terminology in late 2023, so part of the Generation III publication peak reflects naming, and the true migration pattern depends on the triangulation queries; a reader should weight the qualitative chronology more heavily than the raw curve.
  • A testable extension of the paper's own falsification markers: track whether reported deployment failures shift from 'the model misunderstood the tool' to 'the model violated an enforced contract'; that shift is the observable signature of the predicted fourth phase.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a narrative survey of the Web of Agents (WoA) spanning roughly 1990--2026, organized around a central thesis: the locus of 'semantic effort' has migrated chronologically from platform-side coordination (Generation I, FIPA-era MAS), through data-side annotation (Generation II, Semantic Web), to model-side interpretation (Generation III, LLM-based agents). The authors call the Gen II to Gen III transition 'semantics-in-data to semantics-in-models' and claim this shift is predictive, in that each generation's failure modes and current open problems follow from where it located semantic effort. The paper contributes a four-dimensional comparative framework (semantic foundation, communication paradigm, locus of intelligence, discovery mechanism), applies it to sixteen systems, covers the November 2024--August 2026 institutional convergence (AAIF, A2A v1.0, MCP specification, payment-network protocols, EU AI Act, NIST CAISI, International AI Safety Report 2026), and derives seven named lessons paired with seven generation-invariant challenges. It also presents bibliometric evidence from OpenAlex with disclosed coverage caveats and releases query results, raw counts, and scripts in a Zenodo supplement.

Significance. If read as a retrospective organizing narrative, the paper is a valuable synthesis: it connects three research communities that are usually surveyed separately, applies a uniform analytical lens across them, and documents a recent institutional layer that few surveys cover. The transparency of the methodology is a genuine strength: the authors explicitly state that this is not a PRISMA-style systematic review, describe the seed-and-snowball and keyword procedures, report the selection funnel, and release the bibliometric data and scripts. The seven lessons and seven challenges, and especially the paired matrix in Figure 5, provide a usable framework for structuring future work, and the falsifiable markers stated in Lesson 4 are a commendable attempt to make the narrative empirically testable. However, the paper's headline claim that the shift is 'predictive' is not supported by the paper's own evidence, because most of the listed challenges are generation-invariant and are attributed to features other than the locus of semantic effort.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5 and §6.5 (Figure 5)] The central claim that 'each generation's failure modes and current open problems follow from where that generation located its semantic effort' is not supported by the paper's own pairing structure. In Figure 5, only Challenge 5 (Non-Verifiable Tool Semantics) is directly paired with Lesson 4 (Semantic-Effort Migration); Challenges 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are attributed to other lessons or to generation-invariant structural features such as identity persistence, discovery, economic substrate, reputation, consent, and liability. The paper explicitly calls these 'generation-invariant problems' that persist across FIPA, Semantic Web, and LLM eras, which means their existence cannot follow from the current model-side locus; at most, their technological manifestation can. The 'predictive' language should be tempered to describe an organizing or retrospective thesis, or the paper should provide a per-challenge derivation showing how each problem is a structural consequence of the locus-based trade-offs.
  2. [§1.2 and Figure 2] The bibliometric evidence is partially circular with respect to the migration thesis. The primary OpenAlex queries are chosen per generation ('FIPA ACL' OR 'agent communication language' for Gen I, 'semantic web service' for Gen II, 'agentic AI' for Gen III), and the generation boundaries are themselves defined by the assumed locus of semantic effort in Table 3. Consequently, Figure 2 largely traces the labels selected for each era. The disclosed caveats (pre-2002 coverage gap, Gen III undercounting) are welcome, but they are not corrected for; as presented, the figure cannot independently confirm the migration pattern. I recommend either adding robustness checks that use the same query terms across all years or explicitly demoting Figure 2 from 'empirical confirmation' to an illustrative visualization of known trends.
  3. [§2, Table 3, and §5] The 'directional pattern' claim rests on assumptions that are also used to define the generations. Generation I (1995--2005) and Generation II (2001--2012) overlap, and the four comparative dimensions are selected to surface the migration rather than being tested against alternative decompositions. This does not invalidate the framework, but it means the migration is, at present, an interpretive lens rather than a measured empirical law. The manuscript would be strengthened by an explicit statement that the platform-data-model ordering is a historiographic claim, not a consequence of the data, and by acknowledging that the 2028 falsifiable markers in Lesson 4 are the first genuine out-of-sample test of the thesis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.3] The acronym 'OW ASP' appears twice and should be 'OWASP'.
  2. [§4.2] The MCP specification date is given as 'version 2025-11-25' but the text elsewhere calls it 'November 2025 specification'; please use one notation consistently.
  3. [Table 4] For SWE-agent and Devin, the Discovery cell reads 'N/A (single-repo)', which could be misread as 'not applicable' in the sense of 'no data'; consider writing 'Not applicable (operates within a fixed repository)' to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [§5] The statement 'the loss it incurs becomes the dominant unresolved problem of the next phase' uses 'dominant' without supporting evidence; consider softening to 'a major unresolved problem' unless the dominance is demonstrated, e.g., via challenge prevalence or adoption-failure analyses.
  5. [References] Reference [84] (Collabnix blog) is a low-authority source for a claim about Kubernetes orchestration of agentic AI; consider replacing it with a peer-reviewed or official reference, or qualify the claim as an industry practice description.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Predictive thesis partly self-definitional: Challenge 5 is defined as the cost of the semantics-in-models shift and then 'predicted' by Lesson 4; Figure 2's confirmation traces era-specific query terms drawn from the generation labels.

  1. self definitional [§6.3 (Challenge 5) and §6.5 (Lesson 4 pairing, Figure 5)]
    "Challenge 5: The Non-Verifiable Tool Semantics Problem.. When an LLM interprets a tool description there is no proof its interpretation matches the tool author's intent: any migration of semantic effort to learned models opens a verifiability gap (the direct cost of the semantics-in-models shift, §5)."

    Challenge 5 is defined in §6.3 as 'the direct cost of the semantics-in-models shift' — that is, as a logical consequence of the migration thesis itself. Section 6.5 then states that 'Lesson 4 (Semantic-Effort Migration, the central thesis lesson) directly produces Challenge 5 (Non-Verifiable Tool Semantics).' The claimed prediction therefore reduces to a tautology: the challenge was constructed as the cost of the shift, and the lesson is the shift. This is the paper's central-thesis pairing (marked with a star in Figure 5), and it is the only challenge the paper traces directly to the migration; the other six challenges are paired with other lessons or with invariant structural features.

  2. self definitional [§1.2 (Bibliometric methodology) and Figure 2 caption]
    "For each generation we ran one primary query and two triangulation queries (the full set is documented in the supplementary material); the primary queries are "FIPA ACL" OR "agent communication language" (Gen I), "semantic web service" (Gen II), and "agentic AI" (Gen III)."

    The generation definitions in Table 3 already assign each generation a semantic locus — platform, data, model — and canonical technologies (FIPA, Semantic Web, LLM). The bibliometric query for each generation is drawn from precisely those era-specific terms, so the publication-share peaks in Figure 2 are aligned with the generation labels by construction. The caption then reads 'The empirical pattern matches the qualitative chronology of Figure 1 and tracks the locus-of-semantic-effort migration (platform→data→model, Lesson 4).' This is not an independent confirmation of the migration; it is a tracing of the labels the authors assigned. The triangulation queries do not break the construction, since they are also chosen to capture each generation's presumed locus.

full rationale

The survey is a historically rich, largely self-contained narrative, and most of its content — the FIPA/Semantic Web/LLM chronology, the sixteen-system classification, the institutional-layer documentation, and the seven lessons as historical generalizations — stands independently of any circular step. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the authors' own prior work appears only as ordinary related literature, and no 'uniqueness theorem' is imported from the authors' earlier papers. However, the paper's central predictive claim is partially circular. First, Challenge 5 (Non-Verifiable Tool Semantics) is defined in §6.3 as 'the direct cost of the semantics-in-models shift', and §6.5 then states that Lesson 4 'directly produces' this challenge. The L4–C5 pairing is therefore true by definition, not by evidence. Second, the bibliometric confirmation in Figure 2 is constructed from per-generation queries ('FIPA ACL'/'agent communication language', 'semantic web service', 'agentic AI') that are themselves the era- and locus-specific labels of Table 3, so the figure's peaks track the authors' generation assignments rather than independently confirming the platform→data→model direction. The remaining six challenges are documented as persisting across all three eras, so the headline assertion that current open problems 'follow from where that generation located its semantic effort' is overstated; only the technological manifestation, not the existence, of these problems tracks the locus. The paper's own falsifiable 2028 markers in Lesson 4 are genuine predictions and keep the work from being wholly circular. A score of 6 reflects partial circularity: the central thesis pair is definitional and the main empirical figure is construction-dependent, but the historical and institutional content is independently substantive.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen historical periodization, hand-selected bibliometric queries, and qualitative claims about where semantic meaning resides in each era. The paper is unusually transparent about these choices and provides falsifiable markers for the next-phase prediction, so the ledger is moderate rather than heavy.

free parameters (3)
  • Generation boundary years = Gen I 1995-2005, Gen II 2001-2012, Gen III 2020s
    Chosen by the authors to fit the narrative; boundaries are historical stylizations, not derived from the bibliometric data. The pre-2002 coverage gap further forces the analytic window to 2002-2026.
  • Primary OpenAlex query terms = 'FIPA ACL' OR 'agent communication language'; 'semantic web service'; 'agentic AI'
    Hand-selected per generation (§1.2); the Gen III term undercounts pre-2023 LLM-agent work, a limitation the authors disclose. Different query choices change the shape of Figure 2.
  • Four comparative dimensions = semantic foundation, communication, locus of intelligence, discovery
    The authors state the framework is 'pragmatically chosen' (§3), not claimed as a novel taxonomy; these dimensions determine the Table 3 and Table 4 classifications.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The three generations (FIPA-era MAS, Semantic Web, LLM agents) are distinct historical epochs with a single locus of semantic effort each.
    Adopted in §2 and Table 3; if any generation is better described as mixed-locus, the migration thesis loses its clean ordering.
  • domain assumption FIPA failed on the open Web because of substrate mismatch, and the Semantic Web stalled because annotation had no economic model.
    These are accepted historical interpretations from the cited literature (§2.1, §2.2), used as evidence for Lessons 1-3 rather than independently established in this paper.
  • domain assumption LLM-era semantics are non-verifiable and flexible, in contrast to formal ontologies.
    Adopted in §5 and Challenge 5; it is a qualitative claim about model behavior, used to derive the predicted next migration toward semantics-in-verified-contracts.
  • ad hoc to paper OpenAlex publication share for three query strings tracks the locus of semantic effort.
    Figure 2 is presented as empirical confirmation; the link between query volume and where 'semantic effort' resides is asserted, not tested.
invented entities (2)
  • Semantics-in-verified-contracts independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted fourth generation locus of semantic effort, meant to restore verifiability lost in the LLM era.
    The paper attaches falsifiable markers: by 2028 at least half of publicly registered MCP servers requiring signed tool manifests, and enforcement-gap dominating residual deployment problems (Lesson 4, §6.5).
  • Three-generation archetypes (Generation I, II, III)
    purpose: Analytical constructs used to organize the entire survey; not physical entities but invented categories.
    They are author-defined periods (Figure 1, Table 3). The paper offers no independent evidence that these are natural kinds rather than convenient labels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Multi-Agent Systems and the Semantic Web to Agentic AI: A Unified Narrative of the Web of Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXPVTXF5

@misc{pith2026250710644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Multi-Agent Systems and the Semantic Web to Agentic AI: A Unified Narrative of the Web of Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXPVTXF5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10644}
}
abstract

The Web of Agents (WoA) transforms the document-centric Web into an environment of autonomous agents acting on users' behalf, a vision newly tractable as large language models (LLMs) mature. We argue that across three decades the WoA has undergone a \emph{semantic-effort migration} in chronological order: from platform-side coordination (Multi-Agent Systems, Generation~I), through data-side annotation (Semantic Web, Generation~II), to model-side interpretation (LLM-era, Generation~III). The central Gen~II~$\rightarrow$~Gen~III transition within this trajectory, which we call the \emph{semantics-in-data $\rightarrow$ semantics-in-models} shift, is predictive: each generation's failure modes and current open problems follow from where that generation located its semantic effort. The survey makes five contributions: (i)~a unified evolutionary narrative spanning 1990--2026; (ii)~a four-dimensional comparative framework (semantic foundation, communication paradigm, locus of intelligence, discovery mechanism) applied uniformly across all three generations; (iii)~classification of sixteen representative systems on these dimensions, including hybrid LLM--knowledge-graph and computer-use agents; (iv)~coverage of the November~2024--August~2026 institutional convergence (Linux Foundation's Agentic AI Foundation, A2A v1.0, MCP November~2024 launch and November~2025 specification, Visa/Mastercard/Stripe payment-network protocols, EU AI Act phased enforcement, the NIST AI Agent Standards Initiative, International AI Safety Report 2026); and (v)~seven named lessons grounded in cross-generational evidence paired with seven generation-invariant challenges that persist regardless of which protocol prevails. Further progress depends less on protocol design than on the socio-technical infrastructure now being assembled by standards bodies, regulators, and commercial payment networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three-generation chronology of the Web of Agents (1995–2026). Upper panel: the three-decade sweep, with each lane showing the active period of one generation: Generation I (FIPA-era MAS, slate-blue, locus of semantic effort in the agent platform); Generation II (Semantic Web, amber, locus in external data); Generation III (LLM-based agents, teal-green, locus in the learned model). The 2017 Transformer architecture m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three-generation publication share of computer science, 1995–2026, normalized per 100 000 CS-tagged works (analytic window 2002–2026; pre-2002 Gen I shown dashed within shaded coverage-gap zone). Primary OpenAlex queries: Gen I = "FIPA ACL" OR "agent communication language"; Gen II = "semantic web service"; Gen III = "agentic AI" (all filtered to primary_topic.field.id=fields/17; full methodology in §1.2 and supplem… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Selection and screening funnel for this survey. Database searches and institutional-source sweeps yielded approximately [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Semantic-Effort Migration across three generations. The locus of semantic effort has migrated systematically in chronological order from agent platforms (Generation I: FIPA-era MAS, 1995–2005), through external data structures (Generation II: Semantic Web, 2001–201…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The seven Named Lessons paired with the seven Generation￾Invariant Challenges. Filled cells mark pairings between lessons (rows L1–L7) and challenges (columns C1–C7). Each Lesson predicts one or more enduring challenges (rows read left to right); each Challenge is root…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. BetaWeb: Towards a Blockchain-enabled Trustworthy Agentic Web

    cs.MA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    BetaWeb promises a blockchain-enabled trustworthy agentic web, but the submitted manuscript body is a different mining-robot paper, leaving the proposal without supporting evidence.

  2. Agentic Web: Weaving the Next Web with AI Agents

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A position paper defines the Agentic Web as the next web era and proposes a three-dimensional conceptual framework for understanding and building it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Introducing GPT-4.5,

    OpenAI, “Introducing GPT-4.5,” OpenAI Blog, February 27, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/index /introducing-gpt-4-5/

    2025

  2. [2]

    Gemini 2.5: Our newest Gemini model with thinking,

    Google DeepMind, “Gemini 2.5: Our newest Gemini model with thinking,” Google DeepMind Blog, March 28, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://blog.google/innovation-a nd-ai/models-and-research/google-deepmind/gemini-model-thinkin g-updates-march-2025/

    2025

  3. [3]

    Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Claude Code,

    Anthropic, “Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Claude Code,” Anthropic Blog, February 24, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-7-sonnet

    2025

  4. [4]

    Grok 3 Beta — The Age of Reasoning Agents,

    xAI, “Grok 3 Beta — The Age of Reasoning Agents,” xAI Blog, February 19, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://x.ai/news/grok-3

    2025

  5. [5]

    Large Enough: Mistral Large 2,

    Mistral AI, “Large Enough: Mistral Large 2,” Mistral AI News, July 24, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-large-2407

    2024

  6. [6]

    Alibaba unveils Qwen 3: A family of hybrid AI reasoning models,

    Alibaba DAMO Academy, “Alibaba unveils Qwen 3: A family of hybrid AI reasoning models,” April 28, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.alibabacloud.com/blog/alibaba-int roduces-qwen3-setting-new-benchmark-in-open-source-ai-with-h ybrid-reasoning 602192

    2025

  7. [7]

    Emergent abilities of large language models,

    J. Wei, Y . Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler, E. H. Chi, T. Hashimoto, O. Vinyals, P. Liang, J. Dean, and W. Fedus, “Emergent abilities of large language models,”Transactions on Machine Learning Research, August 2022, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=yzkSU5zdwD

    2022

  8. [8]

    The illusion of thinking: Understanding the strengths and limitations of reasoning models via the lens of problem complexity,

    P. Shojaee, I. Mirzadeh, K. Alizadeh, M. Horton, S. Bengio, and M. Farajtabar, “The illusion of thinking: Understanding the strengths and limitations of reasoning models via the lens of problem complexity,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2506.06941

    arXiv 2025

Show all 159 references
  1. [9]

    Function calling and other API updates,

    OpenAI, “Function calling and other API updates,” OpenAI Blog, June 13, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/index/function-calling-and-other-api-updates/

    2023

  2. [10]

    Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification,

    Anthropic, “Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification,” November 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/introduction

    2024

  3. [11]

    Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol specification,

    Google, “Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol specification,” 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://a2aproject.githu b.io/A2A/latest/

    2025

  4. [12]

    Weiss, Ed.,Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Dis- tributed Artificial Intelligence

    G. Weiss, Ed.,Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Dis- tributed Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999

    1999

  5. [13]

    The semantic web,

    T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila, “The semantic web,” Scientific American, vol. 284, no. 5, pp. 34–43, May 2001

    2001

  6. [14]

    Semantic web technologies,

    D. Brickley, S. Buswell, B. Matthews, L. Miller, D. Reynolds, and M. Wilson, “Semantic web technologies,” JISC Technology and Standards Watch, Tech. Rep. TSW 05-02, 2005, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://epubs.stfc.ac.uk/manifestati on/653/jisctsw 05 02pdf.pdf

    2005

  7. [15]

    Semantic web as the next generation smart web,

    N. Malik and S. K. Malik, “Semantic web as the next generation smart web,”Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 580–594, 2018, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.jetir.org/papers/JET IR1806326.pdf

    2018

  8. [16]

    Towards a new synthesis of ontology technology and knowledge management,

    P. Mika and J. Akkermans, “Towards a new synthesis of ontology technology and knowledge management,”The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 317–345, 2004, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888 905000305

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema,

    D. Brickley and R. V . Guha, “RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema,” W3C Recommendation, February 2004, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.o rg/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/

    2004

  10. [18]

    OWL web ontology language overview,

    D. L. McGuinness and F. van Harmelen, “OWL web ontology language overview,” W3C Recommendation, February 2004, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/ 2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/

    2004

  11. [19]

    A decade in hindsight: The missing bridge between multi-agent systems and the world wide web,

    A. Ciortea, S. Mayer, F. Gandon, O. Boissier, A. Ricci, and A. Zimmermann, “A decade in hindsight: The missing bridge between multi-agent systems and the world wide web,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). M...

    2019

  12. [20]

    AI agents vs. agentic AI: A conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges,

    R. Sapkota, K. I. Roumeliotis, and M. Karkee, “AI agents vs. agentic AI: A conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges,” Information Fusion, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599

    2025

  13. [21]

    Agentic AI: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals—a comprehensive survey,

    D. B. Acharya, K. Kuppan, and B. Divya, “Agentic AI: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals—a comprehensive survey,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 18 912–18 936, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3532853. [Online]. Available: https://doi.or g/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3532853

    2025

  14. [22]

    From LLM reasoning to autonomous AI agents: A comprehensive review,

    M. A. Ferrag, N. Tihanyi, and M. Debbah, “From LLM reasoning to autonomous AI agents: A comprehensive review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19678, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19678

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,

    L. Wang, C. Ma, X. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Tang, X. Chen, Y . Lin, W. X. Zhao, Z. Wei, and J.-R. Wen, “A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,”Frontiers of Computer Science, vol. 18, no. 6, art. 186345, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11704-024-402...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    A survey of agent interoperability protocols: Model Context Protocol (MCP), Agent Communication Protocol (ACP), Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A), and Agent Network Protocol (ANP),

    A. Ehtesham, A. Singh, G. K. Gupta, and S. Kumar, “A survey of agent interoperability protocols: Model Context Protocol (MCP), Agent Communication Protocol (ACP), Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A), and Agent Network Protocol (ANP),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02279, 2025, accessed:...

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Agent Network Protocol Technical White Paper: Towards an Open Internet of Agents,

    Agent Network Protocol Contributors, “Agent Network Protocol Technical White Paper: Towards an Open Internet of Agents,” 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://agentnetworkprot ocol.com/en/specs/01-agentnetworkprotocol-technical-white-paper/ 22

    2025

  18. [26]

    Generative to agentic AI: Survey, conceptualization, and challenges,

    J. Schneider, “Generative to agentic AI: Survey, conceptualization, and challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18875, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18875

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Collaborative agentic AI needs interoperability across ecosystems,

    R. Sharma, M. de V os, P. Chari, R. Raskar, and A. Kermarrec, “Collaborative agentic AI needs interoperability across ecosystems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21550, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.21550

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, R. Chou, J. Glanville, J. M. Grimshaw, A. Hr ´objartsson, M. M. Lalu, T. Li, E. W. Loder, E. Mayo-Wilson, S. McDonald, L. A. McGuinness, ...

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Distributed artificial intelligence,

    M. N. Huhns, “Distributed artificial intelligence,” inDistributed artificial intelligence, L. Gasser and M. N. Huhns, Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, 1989, pp. 1–23

    1989

  22. [30]

    BDI agents: From theory to practice,

    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, “BDI agents: From theory to practice,” inProceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS). AAAI Press, 1995, pp. 312–319

    1995

  23. [31]

    KQML as an agent communication language,

    T. Finin, R. Fritzson, D. McKay, and R. McEntire, “KQML as an agent communication language,” inProceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’94). ACM Press, 1994, pp. 456–463, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    1994

  24. [32]

    FIPA ACL Message Structure Specification,

    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, “FIPA ACL Message Structure Specification,” FIPA Standard SC00061G, December 2002, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://web.archive.org/ web/2020*/http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00061/SC00061G.html

    2002

  25. [33]

    JADE: A FIPA- compliant agent framework,

    F. Bellifemine, A. Poggi, and G. Rimassa, “JADE: A FIPA- compliant agent framework,” inProceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (PAAM’99), London, UK, 1999, pp. 97–108, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Onl...

    1999

  26. [34]

    D. B. Lange and M. Oshima,Programming and Deploying Java Mobile Agents with Aglets. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    Intelligent agents: Theory and practice,

    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, “Intelligent agents: Theory and practice,”The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115–152, 1995

    1995

  28. [36]

    AutoGPT: An autonomous GPT agent,

    Significant-Gravitas, “AutoGPT: An autonomous GPT agent,” GitHub repository, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT

    2023

  29. [37]

    Wooldridge,An introduction to MultiAgent systems, 2nd ed

    M. Wooldridge,An introduction to MultiAgent systems, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    A retrospective view of FA/C distributed problem solving,

    V . R. Lesser, “A retrospective view of FA/C distributed problem solving,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1347–1362, Dec. 1991

    1991

  31. [39]

    History of FIPA,

    S. Poslad, “History of FIPA,” Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, Queen Mary, University of London, last updated 20 December 2005, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://web.archive.org/web/2020*/http://www.fipa.org/subgroups/ ROFS-SG-docs/History-of-FIPA.htm

    2005

  32. [40]

    Specifying protocols for multi-agent systems interac- tion,

    S. Poslad, “Specifying protocols for multi-agent systems interac- tion,”ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, Article 15, pp. 15:1–15:24, November 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Semantic web and declar- ative agent languages and technologies: Current and future trends,

    V . Mascardi, J. Hendler, and L. Papaleo, “Semantic web and declar- ative agent languages and technologies: Current and future trends,” inDeclarative Agent Languages and Technologies X, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, M. Baldoni, L. Dennis, V . Mascardi, and W. Vasconc...

    2013

  34. [42]

    Semantic aware multi-agent system ad- vantages,

    T. Manev and S. Filiposka, “Semantic aware multi-agent system ad- vantages,”International Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology (IJ-ICT), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–12, February 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    Bridging multi agent systems and web services: Towards interoperability between software agents and semantic web services,

    O. Shafiq, Y . Ding, and D. Fensel, “Bridging multi agent systems and web services: Towards interoperability between software agents and semantic web services,” inProceedings of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC ’06). Hong Kon...

    2006

  36. [44]

    A middleware architec- ture for semantic web services,

    F. Cavallaro, F. Giunchiglia, and I. Liccardi, “A middleware architec- ture for semantic web services,” inThe Semantic Web: Research and Applications, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, C. Bussler, J. Davies, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, Eds., vol. 3053. Berlin, Heidelberg: ...

    2004

  37. [45]

    Middleware between OWL and FIPA ontologies in the semantic grid environment,

    M. Pasha, S. Rehman, A. Ali, H. F. Ahmad, and H. Suguri, “Middleware between OWL and FIPA ontologies in the semantic grid environment,” inProceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Semantic Web and Web Services (SWWS ’06). Las Vegas, NV , USA: CSREA Press, June 2006, ...

    2006

  38. [46]

    RDF primer,

    F. Manola and E. Miller, “RDF primer,” W3C Recommendation, February 2004, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https: //www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/

    2004

  39. [47]

    OWL 2 web ontology language document overview (second edition),

    W3C OWL Working Group, “OWL 2 web ontology language document overview (second edition),” W3C Recommendation, 11 December 2012, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-overview-20121211/

    2012

  40. [48]

    A taxonomy of web agents,

    Z. Huang, A. Eli ¨ens, A. van Ballegooij, and P. de Bra, “A taxonomy of web agents,” inProceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’00), A. M. Toja, Ed. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, September 2000, pp. 765–769

    2000

  41. [49]

    The semantic web revisited,

    N. Shadbolt, T. Berners-Lee, and W. Hall, “The semantic web revisited,”IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 96–101, 2006

    2006

  42. [50]

    Incentive alignment of business pro- cesses,

    T. Heindel and I. Weber, “Incentive alignment of business pro- cesses,” inBusiness Process Management - 18th International Con- ference, BPM 2020, Seville, Spain, September 13-18, 2020, Proceed- ings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12168. Cham: Springer, 2020, pp...

    2020

  43. [51]

    Simperl, R

    E. Simperl, R. Cuel, and M. Stein,Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering, ser. Synthesis Lectures on the Semantic Web: Theory and Technology. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    Siorpaes and E

    K. Siorpaes and E. Simperl, Eds.,Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Incentives for the Semantic Web (INSEMTIVE 2008)at ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26, 2008, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: http://km.aifb.kit.edu/ws/insemtive2008/

    2008

  45. [53]

    Schema.org: Evolution of structured data on the web,

    R. V . Guha, D. Brickley, and S. Macbeth, “Schema.org: Evolution of structured data on the web,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 44–51, 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    The open graph protocol,

    Facebook, Inc., “The open graph protocol,” 2010, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://ogp.me/

    2010

  47. [55]

    DBpedia – A crystallization point for the web of data,

    C. Bizer, J. Lehmann, G. Kobilarov, S. Auer, C. Becker, R. Cyganiak, and S. Hellmann, “DBpedia – A crystallization point for the web of data,”Journal of Web Semantics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 154–165, 2009

    2009

  48. [56]

    Wikidata: A free collaborative knowledge base,

    D. Vrande ˇci´c and M. Kr ¨otzsch, “Wikidata: A free collaborative knowledge base,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 78–85, 2014

    2014

  49. [57]

    One schema to rule them all: How Schema.org models the world of search,

    A. Iliadis, A. Acker, W. Stevens, and S. B. Kavakli, “One schema to rule them all: How Schema.org models the world of search,”Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 460–523, 2025. 23

    2025

  50. [58]

    Web intelligence: New frontiers of exploration,

    Y . Yao, “Web intelligence: New frontiers of exploration,” inPro- ceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Active Media Technology (AMT 2005). IEEE, 2005, pp. 3–8

    2005

  51. [59]

    The 23rd IEEE/WIC international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (WI-IAT’24),

    IEEE/WIC, “The 23rd IEEE/WIC international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (WI-IAT’24),” inProceedings of the 2024 IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT). Bangkok, Thailand: IEEE, 2024, ac...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Web intelligence journal in perspec- tive: An analysis of its two decades trajectory,

    D. A. Domingos, B. M. Faria, A. M. Z-Flores, S. Isotani, I. I. Bittencourt, and J. Cascalho, “Web intelligence journal in perspec- tive: An analysis of its two decades trajectory,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05129, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.o...

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Towards a taxonomy of agents and multi-agent sys- tems,

    L. J. Moya, “Towards a taxonomy of agents and multi-agent sys- tems,” inProceedings of the 2007 Spring Simulation Multicon- ference, San Diego, CA, USA: Society for Computer Simulation International, 2007, pp. 27–34

    2007

  54. [62]

    ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language mod- els,

    S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao, “ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language mod- els,” inProc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?i d=WE vluYUL-X

    2023

  55. [63]

    HATP: Hierarchical agent-based task planner,

    R. Lallement, L. de Silva, and R. Alami, “HATP: Hierarchical agent-based task planner,” inProc. 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Stockholm, Sweden, 2018, pp. 1823–1825, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: http://www.ifaa...

    2018

  56. [64]

    TwoStep: Multi-agent task planning using classical planners and large language models,

    D. Bai, I. Singh, D. Traum, and J. Thomason, “TwoStep: Multi-agent task planning using classical planners and large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17246, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.17246

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Probabilistic planning in agentspeak using the pomdp framework,

    K. Bauters, K. McAreavey, J. Hong, Y . Chen, W. Liu, L. Godo, and C. Sierra, “Probabilistic planning in agentspeak using the pomdp framework,” inCombinations of Intelligent Methods and Applications, ser. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, I. Hatzilygeroudis, V . Palad...

    2016

  58. [66]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan, “Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 36, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.ne...

    2023

  59. [67]

    LangChain: A framework for developing applications powered by large language models,

    langchain-ai, “LangChain: A framework for developing applications powered by large language models,” 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain

    2023

  60. [68]

    MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework,

    S. Hong, M. Zhuge, J. Chen, X. Zheng, Y . Cheng, C. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Wang, S. K. S. Yau, Z. Lin, L. Zhou, C. Ran, L. Xiao, C. Wu, and J. Schmidhuber, “MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework,” inProc. International Con- ference on Learning Represe...

    2024

  61. [69]

    Crewai: Framework for orchestrating role- playing, autonomous AI agents,

    CrewAI Contributors, “Crewai: Framework for orchestrating role- playing, autonomous AI agents,” GitHub repository https://github.c om/crewAIInc/crewAI, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2023

  62. [70]

    NLWeb: Bringing conversational interfaces directly to the web,

    Microsoft, “NLWeb: Bringing conversational interfaces directly to the web,” https://github.com/nlweb-ai/NLWeb, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2025

  63. [71]

    Magentic-UI: A research prototype of a human-centered interface powered by a multi-agent system,

    Microsoft, “Magentic-UI: A research prototype of a human-centered interface powered by a multi-agent system,” https://github.com/mic rosoft/magentic-ui, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2025

  64. [72]

    From Local to Global: A GraphRAG Approach to Query- Focused Summarization,

    D. Edge, H. Trinh, N. Cheng, J. Bradley, A. Chao, A. Mody, S. Truitt, D. Metropolitansky, R. O. Ness, and J. Larson, “From Local to Global: A GraphRAG Approach to Query- Focused Summarization,” Microsoft Research technical report, 2024, also available on arXiv. [Online]. Avail...

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Build with Claude,

    Anthropic, “Build with Claude,”Anthropic Documentation, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://docs.anthropic.c om/en/docs/using-the-computer

    2024

  66. [74]

    Introducing Operator,

    OpenAI, “Introducing Operator,” OpenAI Blog, January 23, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/index /introducing-operator/

    2025

  67. [75]

    SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering,

    J. Yang, C. E. Jimenez, A. Wettig, K. Lieret, S. Yao, K. Narasimhan, and O. Press, “SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15793

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Introducing Devin, the first AI software engineer,

    Cognition AI, “Introducing Devin, the first AI software engineer,” Cognition AI Blog, March 12, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://cognition.ai/blog/introducing-devin

    2024

  69. [77]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B....

    2020

  70. [78]

    Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4,

    S. Bubeck, V . Chandrasekaran, R. Eldan, J. Gehrke, E. Horvitz, E. Kamar, P. Lee, Y . T. Lee, Y . Li, S. Lundberg, H. Nori, H. Palangi, M. T. Ribeiro, and Y . Zhang, “Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023...

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol repository,

    Google, “Agent2Agent (A2A) protocol repository,” https://github.c om/a2aproject/A2A, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2025

  72. [80]

    Introducing ChatGPT plugins,

    OpenAI, “Introducing ChatGPT plugins,” OpenAI Blog, March 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://openai.c om/index/chatgpt-plugins/

    2023

  73. [81]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. P ´erez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, S. Welleck, M. Komeili, W. Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing System...

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Borg, the predecessor to Kubernetes,

    B. Burns, “Borg, the predecessor to Kubernetes,”Kubernetes Blog, Apr. 2015, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://kube rnetes.io/blog/2015/04/borg-predecessor-to-kubernetes/

    2015

  75. [83]

    AI and ML orchestration on GKE,

    Google Cloud, “AI and ML orchestration on GKE,”Google Ku- bernetes Engine Documentation, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/int egrations/ai-infra

    2026

  76. [84]

    Agentic AI on Kubernetes: Advanced orchestration, deployment, and scaling strategies for autonomous AI systems,

    A. Gupta, “Agentic AI on Kubernetes: Advanced orchestration, deployment, and scaling strategies for autonomous AI systems,”Col- labnix, May 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https: //collabnix.com/agentic-ai-on-kubernetes-advanced-orchestration-d eployment-and-s...

    2024

  77. [85]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools,

    T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, R. Dess `ı, R. Raileanu, M. Lomeli, E. Ham- bro, L. Zettlemoyer, N. Cancedda, and T. Scialom, “Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2023, pp. 68 539– 68 551. [Onl...

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,

    P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. B. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei, “Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, E...

    2017

  79. [87]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. J. Gordon, and J. A. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” inProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Resear...

    2011

  80. [88]

    The model context protocol: An emerging standard for AI agent-tool interactions,

    Docker Inc., “The model context protocol: An emerging standard for AI agent-tool interactions,” White Paper, Docker Inc., 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.docker.com /resources/the-model-context-protocol-white-paper/

    2025

  81. [89]

    Model Context Protocol Specification, version 2025-11-25: Tasks, OAuth 2.1, and Registry,

    Model Context Protocol Working Group, “Model Context Protocol Specification, version 2025-11-25: Tasks, OAuth 2.1, and Registry,” November 25, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-11-25

    2025

  82. [90]

    WebMCP: Browser-Native Extension of the Model Context Protocol,

    W3C Web Machine Learning Community Group, “WebMCP: Browser-Native Extension of the Model Context Protocol,” W3C Community Group draft (deliverable accepted September 2025), accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://webmachinelear ning.github.io/webmcp/

    2025

  83. [91]

    AG-UI: The Agent-User Interaction Protocol,

    ag-ui-protocol contributors, “AG-UI: The Agent-User Interaction Protocol,” GitHub repository, May 2025 (initial release), accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ag-ui-protocol/ ag-ui

    2025

  84. [92]

    Linux Foundation Launches the Agent2Agent Protocol Project to Enable Secure, Intelligent Communication Between AI Agents,

    Linux Foundation, “Linux Foundation Launches the Agent2Agent Protocol Project to Enable Secure, Intelligent Communication Between AI Agents,” Press release, June 23, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/ press/linux-foundation-launch...

    2025

  85. [93]

    ACP Joins Forces with A2A under the Linux Foundation’s LF AI & Data,

    K. Blair and T. Segal, “ACP Joins Forces with A2A under the Linux Foundation’s LF AI & Data,” Linux Foundation AI & Data Community Blog, August 29, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://lfaidata.foundation/communityblog/2025/08/29/a cp-joins-forces-with-a2a-...

    2025

  86. [94]

    Linux Foundation Announces the Formation of the Agentic AI Foundation,

    Linux Foundation, “Linux Foundation Announces the Formation of the Agentic AI Foundation,” Press release, December 9, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.linuxfound ation.org/press/linux-foundation-announces-the-formation-of-the-a gentic-ai-foundation

    2025

  87. [95]

    Agent-to-Agent (A2A) Protocol Specification v0.3.0,

    A2A Working Group, “Agent-to-Agent (A2A) Protocol Specification v0.3.0,” GitHub release, July 30, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/a2aproject/A2 A/releases/tag/v0.3.0

    2025

  88. [96]

    Announcing A2A Protocol v1.0.0,

    A2A Working Group, “Announcing A2A Protocol v1.0.0,” A2A Project Documentation, March 12, 2026, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://a2a-protocol.org/latest/announcing-1.0/

    2026

  89. [97]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation,

    Microsoft Research, “Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation,” GitHub repository https://github.com /microsoft/autogen, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2023

  90. [98]

    LangChain: A framework for building LLM applications with tooling,

    LangChain Authors, “LangChain: A framework for building LLM applications with tooling,” https://docs.langchain.com/oss/python/la ngchain/overview, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2023

  91. [99]

    CrewAI: A multi-agent orchestration toolkit,

    CrewAI Contributors, “CrewAI: A multi-agent orchestration toolkit,” 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://github.com /crewAIInc/crewAI

    2024

  92. [100]

    Introducing Strands Agents, an open source AI agents SDK,

    C. Liguori, “Introducing Strands Agents, an open source AI agents SDK,”AWS Open Source Blog, May 16, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/ope nsource/introducing-strands-agents-an-open-source-ai-agents-sdk/

    2025

  93. [101]

    Semantic Kernel: Orchestration and plugins for AI,

    Microsoft, “Semantic Kernel: Orchestration and plugins for AI,” ht tps://github.com/microsoft/semantic-kernel, 2023, accessed: 2026- 05-14

    2023

  94. [102]

    Integrating Semantic Kernel Python with Google’s A2A protocol,

    E. Mattson, “Integrating Semantic Kernel Python with Google’s A2A protocol,”Microsoft Foundry Blog, Apr. 17, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/f oundry/semantic-kernel-a2a-integration/

    2025

  95. [103]

    LlamaIndex: Build knowledge assistants over your enterprise data,

    LlamaIndex Development Team, “LlamaIndex: Build knowledge assistants over your enterprise data,” https://www.llamaindex.ai/, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2026

  96. [104]

    SuperAGI: A dev-first open-source au- tonomous AI agent framework,

    TransformerOptimus, “SuperAGI: A dev-first open-source au- tonomous AI agent framework,” https://github.com/Transformer Optimus/SuperAGI, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2023

  97. [105]

    Amazon bedrock agents,

    Amazon Web Services, “Amazon bedrock agents,” https://aws.amaz on.com/bedrock/agents/, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-14

    2023

  98. [106]

    Azure AI Studio,

    Microsoft Azure, “Azure AI Studio,”Microsoft Azure, 2024, ac- cessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://azure.microsoft.co m/en-us/products/ai-studio

    2024

  99. [107]

    Vertex AI Agent Builder overview,

    Google Cloud, “Vertex AI Agent Builder overview,” 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://cloud.google.com/vertex-a i/generative-ai/docs/agent-builder/overview

    2024

  100. [108]

    Assistants API,

    OpenAI, “Assistants API,”OpenAI API Documentation, 2023, ac- cessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://platform.openai.co m/docs/assistants/overview

    2023

  101. [109]

    IBM watsonx Orchestrate,

    IBM, “IBM watsonx Orchestrate,”IBM, 2023, accessed: 2026-05-

    2023

  102. [110]

    Available: https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx-orc hestrate

    [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/products/watsonx-orc hestrate

  103. [111]

    AI foundation model marketplace - Amazon Bedrock Marketplace,

    Amazon Web Services, “AI foundation model marketplace - Amazon Bedrock Marketplace,” 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://aws.amazon.com/bedrock/marketplace/

    2024

  104. [112]

    Introducing the GPT Store,

    OpenAI, “Introducing the GPT Store,” January 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/index/introduci ng-the-gpt-store/

    2024

  105. [113]

    SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?,

    C. E. Jimenez, J. Yang, A. Wettig, S. Yao, K. Pei, O. Press, and K. Narasimhan, “SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?,” inProc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=V...

    2024

  106. [114]

    Self-RAG: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection,

    A. Asai, Z. Wu, Y . Wang, A. Sil, and H. Hajishirzi, “Self-RAG: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection,” inProc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  107. [115]

    CAR-RAG: Category-aware hybrid retrieval-augmented generation for hallucination mitigation,

    T. Petrova, D. Koriakov, and R. State, “CAR-RAG: Category-aware hybrid retrieval-augmented generation for hallucination mitigation,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data (BigData), 2025, pp. 1547–1554

    2025

  108. [116]

    Towards an interoperable ecosystem of AI and LT platforms: A roadmap for the implementation of different levels of interoperability,

    G. Rehm, D. Galanis, P. Labropoulou, S. Piperidis, M. Welß, R. Usbeck, J. K ¨ohler, M. Deligiannis, K. Gkirtzou, J. Fischer, C. Chiarcos, N. Feldhus, J. Moreno-Schneider, F. Kintzel, E. Montiel, V . Rodr ´ıguez Doncel, J. P. McCrae, D. Laqua, I. P. Theile, C. Dittmar, K. Bontc...

    2020

  109. [117]

    Agent marketplace,

    N. Yekollu, R. Jain, and S. G. Patil, “Agent marketplace,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://gorilla.cs.berkeley.edu/blogs/11 agent marketplace.html 25

    2024

  110. [118]

    On the ETHOS of AI Agents: An Ethical Technology and Holistic Oversight System,

    T. J. Chaffer, J. Goldston, B. Okusanya, and Gemach D.A.T.A. I, “On the ETHOS of AI Agents: An Ethical Technology and Holistic Oversight System,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17114, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0,

    World Wide Web Consortium, “Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0,” World Wide Web Consortium, W3C Recommendation, May 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https: //www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/

    2025

  112. [120]

    Know Your Agent: Governing AI Identity on the Agentic Web,

    T. J. Chaffer, “Know Your Agent: Governing AI Identity on the Agentic Web,” SSRN Working Paper, February 2025, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5162127. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.5162127

    2025 doi

  113. [122]

    Post-quantum cryptog- raphy for internet of things: A survey on performance and optimiza- tion,

    T. Liu, G. S. Ramachandran, and R. Jurdak, “Post-quantum cryptog- raphy for internet of things: A survey on performance and optimiza- tion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17538, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/html/2401.17538v1/

    2024 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Intent- based networking - concepts and definitions,

    A. Clemm, L. Ciavaglia, L. Z. Granville, and J. Tantsura, “Intent- based networking - concepts and definitions,” Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), RFC 9315, October 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc9315.html

    2022

  115. [124]

    How we built our multi-agent research system,

    Anthropic, “How we built our multi-agent research system,” Anthropic Engineering Blog, June 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/multi-a gent-research-system

    2025

  116. [125]

    A voting-based system for ethical decision making,

    R. Noothigattu, S. Gaikwad, E. Awad, S. Dsouza, I. Rahwan, P. Ravikumar, and A. D. Procaccia, “A voting-based system for ethical decision making,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018, pp. 1587–1594. [On- line]. Available: https:/...

    2018

  117. [126]

    Is bitcoin a real currency? An economic appraisal,

    D. Yermack, “Is bitcoin a real currency? An economic appraisal,” inHandbook of Digital Currency, D. K. C. Lee, Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015, pp. 31–43

    2015

  118. [127]

    Decentralized token economy theory (DeTEcT): Token pricing, stability and governance for token economies,

    R. Sadykhov, G. Goodell, D. de Montigny, M. Schoernig, and P. Treleaven, “Decentralized token economy theory (DeTEcT): Token pricing, stability and governance for token economies,” Frontiers in Blockchain, vol. 6, art. 1298330, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fbloc.2023.1298330. [Online]. ...

    2023

  119. [128]

    Mastercard Unveils Agent Pay, Pioneering Agentic Payments Technology to Power Commerce in the Age of AI,

    Mastercard, “Mastercard Unveils Agent Pay, Pioneering Agentic Payments Technology to Power Commerce in the Age of AI,” Press release, April 29, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.mastercard.com/global/en/news-and-trends/press/2025 /april/mastercard-un...

    2025

  120. [129]

    Visa Introduces Trusted Agent Protocol: An Ecosystem- Led Framework for AI Commerce,

    Visa Inc., “Visa Introduces Trusted Agent Protocol: An Ecosystem- Led Framework for AI Commerce,” Press release, October 14, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://usa.visa.com/abo ut-visa/newsroom/press-releases/visa-intelligent-commerce.html

    2025

  121. [130]

    The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism,

    G. A. Akerlof, “The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism,”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 488–500, 1970

    1970

  122. [131]

    Developing an Open Standard for Agentic Commerce,

    Stripe and OpenAI, “Developing an Open Standard for Agentic Commerce,” Stripe Blog, September 29, 2025, accessed: 2026-05-

    2025

  123. [132]

    Available: https://stripe.com/blog/developing-an-ope n-standard-for-agentic-commerce

    [Online]. Available: https://stripe.com/blog/developing-an-ope n-standard-for-agentic-commerce

  124. [133]

    An inte- grated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems,

    T. D. Huynh, N. R. Jennings, and N. R. Shadbolt, “An inte- grated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems,” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 119–154, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458 -005-6825-4

    2006 doi

  125. [134]

    Review on computational trust and rep- utation models,

    J. Sabater and C. Sierra, “Review on computational trust and rep- utation models,”Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 33–60, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-0 04-0041-5

    2005 doi

  126. [135]

    A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision,

    A. Jøsang, R. Ismail, and C. Boyd, “A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision,”Decision Support Systems, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 618–644, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019

    2007 doi

  127. [136]

    A blockchain-based e-commerce reputa- tion system built with verifiable credentials,

    ¨O. Do˘gan and H. Karacan, “A blockchain-based e-commerce reputa- tion system built with verifiable credentials,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 49227–49238, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.110 9/ACCESS.2023.3274707

    2023

  128. [137]

    The Eigen- Trust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks,

    S. D. Kamvar, M. T. Schlosser, and H. Garcia-Molina, “The Eigen- Trust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’03). New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2003, pp. 640–651. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2003

  129. [138]

    The social cost of cheap pseudonyms,

    E. Friedman and P. Resnick, “The social cost of cheap pseudonyms,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 173–199, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://smg.media.mit.edu/libr ary/FriedmanResnick.pseudonyms.pdf (accessed: 2026-05-14)

    2001

  130. [139]

    Masse,REST API Design Rulebook: Designing Consistent Web Services

    M. Masse,REST API Design Rulebook: Designing Consistent Web Services. O’Reilly Media, 2016

    2016

  131. [140]

    Truthful feedback for sanctioning repu- tation mechanisms,

    R. Jurca and B. Faltings, “Truthful feedback for sanctioning repu- tation mechanisms,” inProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC ’05). New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2005, pp. 190–199

    2005

  132. [141]

    Blockchain-based reputation systems: Implementation challenges and mitigation,

    A. Battah, Y . Iraqi, and E. Damiani, “Blockchain-based reputation systems: Implementation challenges and mitigation,”Electronics, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 289, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi .com/2079-9292/10/3/289 (accessed: 2026-05-14)

    2021

  133. [142]

    International AI Safety Report 2026,

    Y . Bengio et al., “International AI Safety Report 2026,” International AI Safety Report Secretariat, February 2026, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://internationalaisafetyreport.org/publicatio n/international-ai-safety-report-2026

    2026

  134. [143]

    Exploring API-driven business models: Lessons learned from Amadeus’s digital transformation,

    S. Heshmatisafa and M. Sepp ¨anen, “Exploring API-driven business models: Lessons learned from Amadeus’s digital transformation,” Digital Business, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 100055, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2023.100055

    2023

  135. [144]

    Cy- cle: Sustainable Off-Chain Payment Channel Network with Asyn- chronous Rebalancing,

    Z. Hong, S. Guo, R. Zhang, P. Li, Y . Zhan, and W. Chen, “Cy- cle: Sustainable Off-Chain Payment Channel Network with Asyn- chronous Rebalancing,” in2022 52nd Annual IEEE/IFIP Interna- tional Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), 2022, pp. 41–53. [Online]. Avail...

    2022

  136. [145]

    OW ASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications,

    OW ASP Foundation, “OW ASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications,” 2024, version 1.1, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-for-large-languag e-model-applications/

    2024

  137. [146]

    Prompt injection attack against LLM-integrated applications [HouYi framework],

    Y . Liu, G. Deng, Y . Li, K. Wang, T. Zhang, Y . Liu, H. Wang, Y . Zheng, and Y . Liu, “Prompt injection attack against LLM-integrated applications [HouYi framework],” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05499, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ab s/2306.05499 (accessed: 2026-05-14)

    2023 arXiv

  138. [147]

    Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions,

    P. W. Koh and P. Liang, “Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions,” inProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, D. Precup and Y . W. Teh, Eds., vol. 70. PMLR, 2017, pp. 1885–1894, acc...

    2017

  139. [148]

    Zero-Knowledge Proofs and OAuth 2.0 for Anonymity and Security in Distributed Systems,

    A. Nait Cherif, Y . Achir, M. Youssfi, M. Elgarej, and O. Bouattane, “Zero-Knowledge Proofs and OAuth 2.0 for Anonymity and Security in Distributed Systems,” inE3S Web of Conferences, vol. 469, 2023, p. 00085. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3 sconf/202346900085

    2023

  140. [149]

    Uniform Electronic Transactions Act,

    National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, “Uniform Electronic Transactions Act,” 1999, accessed: 2026-05-

    1999

  141. [150]

    Available: http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08 -732/Transactions/ueta.pdf 26

    [Online]. Available: http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08 -732/Transactions/ueta.pdf 26

  142. [151]

    The knowledge com- plexity of interactive proof systems,

    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff, “The knowledge com- plexity of interactive proof systems,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 186–208, 1989

    1989

  143. [152]

    European Digital Identity Wallet: Security and Privacy Features,

    European Commission, “European Digital Identity Wallet: Security and Privacy Features,” European Commission, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-build ing-blocks/sites/display/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/Security +and+Privacy

    2024

  144. [153]

    PLONK: Permu- tations over Lagrange-bases for Oecumenical Noninteractive Argu- ments of Knowledge,

    A. Gabizon, Z. J. Williamson, and O. Ciobotaru, “PLONK: Permu- tations over Lagrange-bases for Oecumenical Noninteractive Argu- ments of Knowledge,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/953,

    2019

  145. [154]

    1–98, Jul

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013...

    2024

  146. [155]

    Insuring AI: The Role of Insurance in Artificial Intelligence Regulation,

    A. Lior, “Insuring AI: The Role of Insurance in Artificial Intelligence Regulation,”Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 469–529, 2022, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v35/2.-Lio r-Insuring-AI.pdf

    2022

  147. [156]

    Agent-Based Digital Identity Architecture,

    K. C. Toth, “Agent-Based Digital Identity Architecture,” in Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference (PNSQC), 2019, pp. 1–12, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnsqc.org/docs/Toth Agent-BasedDigital F inal.pdf

    2019

  148. [158]

    Enhanced DeFi security on XRPL with zero- knowledge proofs and speaker verification,

    P. Pantiukhov, D. Koriakov, T. Petrova, J. H. Alves, V . K. Gur- bani, and R. State, “Enhanced DeFi security on XRPL with zero- knowledge proofs and speaker verification,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Expo Real Time Commun. at IIT, 2024

    2024

  149. [160]

    AI Agent Standards Initiative,

    Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, “AI Agent Standards Initiative,” Announced February 17, 2026, accessed: 2026-05-14. [Online]. Available: https://www.nist.gov/caisi/ai-agent-standards-i nitiative 27 Table 7. C...

    2023

  150. [2019]

    Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/953

    [Online]. Available: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/953

    2019

  151. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19301

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19301

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.