The timing matters because agents are no longer laboratory curiosities. In the space of a few years, systems built on large language models have learned to decompose goals into steps, invoke external tools such as calculators, code interpreters and search engines, and hand tasks to one another in coordinated teams. The review’s authors describe this as a decisive shift: where earlier autonomous agents relied on narrow reinforcement learning policies tuned to a single environment, foundation models now supply general-purpose language understanding that can be repurposed across tasks. That flexibility is precisely what makes the field both powerful and difficult to evaluate, since two systems described with the same vocabulary may share almost no architectural DNA.

To cut through that confusion, the team applied a two-stage PRISMA-informed search, combining the Scopus database with structured manual screening of the literature. PRISMA, the reporting framework best known from medical systematic reviews, imposes transparent inclusion and exclusion criteria so that the final corpus can be audited rather than cherry-picked. From the resulting set of 107 original studies, the authors distilled something the field has lacked: a unified five-module architecture that any autonomous agent can be described against, comprising profile, memory, planning, action and security.

Each module carries a precise technical meaning. The profile module defines who the agent is, encoding its role, persona, constraints and domain knowledge so that downstream reasoning has a stable identity to work from. The memory module handles what the agent retains, spanning short-term working context and long-term stores of past interactions, retrieved facts and learned experience. The planning module is the cognitive engine, translating a high-level goal into an ordered sequence of steps, often through explicit reasoning chains or iterative refinement. The action module executes those steps, invoking tools, APIs or other agents to change the world or gather information. The security module, the most frequently neglected of the five, governs what the agent may do, enforcing permissions, sandboxing tool calls and guarding against prompt injection and unsafe outputs.

When the authors compared agent capabilities across ten application domains, two recurring design patterns emerged. The first is that explicitly integrating domain knowledge consistently improves performance. Agents that are fed structured expert knowledge, whether as curated prompts, retrieval corpora or symbolic rules, outperform generic counterparts that rely purely on the statistical priors of their underlying models. The second pattern is role specialization: across wildly different applications, successful systems converge on a planner-executor-reflector division of labor. One component formulates the plan, another carries it out, and a third critiques the result and triggers revision. This loop of proposal, execution and reflection appears so consistently across the literature that the authors treat it as a structural signature of capable agent design.

Multi-agent systems extend the same logic to teams. Rather than one agent holding every competency, tasks are distributed among specialized agents that communicate, negotiate and verify one another’s outputs. The review documents how such architectures improve performance on complex, multi-step problems, since a dedicated critic can catch errors that a single monolithic agent would propagate. But coordination introduces its own failure modes, from message ambiguity to cascading mistakes when one agent’s flawed output becomes another’s input. The authors’ unified vocabulary is intended to make such comparisons systematic, allowing researchers to state precisely which modules differ between systems and which capabilities actually transfer across domains.

Evaluation is where the review delivers its most sobering message. The authors organize existing practices into six dimensions: task performance, efficiency, quality, robustness, safety and interpretability. Across the 107 studies, the first dimension dominates. Researchers overwhelmingly report how well their agents complete tasks, while efficiency, quality and especially robustness, safety and interpretability remain under-evaluated. In plain terms, the field knows a great deal about what agents can achieve and very little about what happens when they fail, when they are attacked, or when their reasoning cannot be inspected by the humans accountable for them.

This imbalance produces the review’s central warning: technical performance often exceeds validated real-world utility. Benchmark scores can look spectacular while the same system, deployed in a hospital, a power grid or a financial workflow, behaves in ways no evaluation has certified. The authors argue that robustness testing against perturbed inputs, safety auditing of tool use and interpretability analysis of planning traces are not optional extras but prerequisites for deployment. Their six-dimension framework gives the community a checklist for honest reporting, and their cross-domain comparison exposes which claims rest on evidence and which rest on enthusiasm.

The significance of the work lies in providing a common basis for understanding, comparing and developing autonomous agents at the moment the technology is scaling faster than its safeguards. By fixing a five-module architecture, cataloguing capability patterns across ten domains and standardizing evaluation into six dimensions, the review converts a fragmented literature into something engineers can build against. The authors, whose research was supported by the University of Dubai Publication Research Fund, published their synthesis as an open-access article, making the full corpus and supplementary data freely available. As agents move from demos into infrastructure, the blueprint they offer may determine whether the next generation of AI systems is merely impressive or genuinely reliable.

Subject of Research: Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems: a comprehensive review

Article Title: Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems: a comprehensive review

Article References: Ala’anzy, M. A., Oshayeva, M., & Himeur, Y. (2026). Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems: a comprehensive review. Artificial Intelligence Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-026-11731-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10462-026-11731-2

Keywords: Autonomous, agents, multi-agent, systems, comprehensive, review, scientific research