Fault-tolerant Mechanisms and Dynamic User Guidance for Proactive AI Agents in Enterprise SaaS Environments

Research Article
Open access

Fault-tolerant Mechanisms and Dynamic User Guidance for Proactive AI Agents in Enterprise SaaS Environments

Mingze Chu 1*
  • 1 School of Computer and Artificial Intelligence, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, Liaoning, 116082, China    
  • *corresponding author MacsenChu@163.com
ACE Vol.160
ISSN (Print): 2755-273X
ISSN (Online): 2755-2721
ISBN (Print): 978-1-80590-149-5
ISBN (Online): 978-1-80590-150-1

Abstract

Enterprise-level Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms have become critical to modern business operations but often suffer from system faults and user errors. Proactive AI Agents offer a promising approach by predicting failures and providing real-time user support before issues occur. This paper presents a structured study of the architecture, classification, and integration of Proactive AI Agents within SaaS environments. The paper looks at important features of these agents—like being independent, making predictions, learning, and interacting—and then sorts them into categories based on how they work in business applications. Fault-tolerant mechanisms such as Byzantine Fault Tolerance, consistency protocols, and machine learning-based fault prediction are analyzed to enhance system stability. On the user side, technologies including natural language processing, large language models, and multimodal interaction are discussed to enable personalized and context-aware guidance. An integration framework is proposed for deploying AI Agents in microservice-based SaaS systems. Real-world use cases and deployment challenges such as system compatibility, computational costs, and data privacy are also addressed. The results suggest that Proactive AI Agents can effectively improve system reliability, reduce operational disruptions, and enhance the overall user experience. These findings provide both theoretical insight and practical guidance for intelligent agent integration in enterprise cloud environments.

Keywords:

Proactive AI Agents, SaaS, Fault Tolerance, Machine Learning, Large Language Models

Chu,M. (2025). Fault-tolerant Mechanisms and Dynamic User Guidance for Proactive AI Agents in Enterprise SaaS Environments. Applied and Computational Engineering,160,232-238.
Export citation

1. Introduction

Enterprise Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms support various important business applications, such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), and data analytics. As these systems become more complex, they face challenges like system failures, inconsistent operations, and user mistakes. These problems may lower service availability, increase maintenance costs, and reduce user satisfaction.

Proactive AI Agents combine system-level fault prediction [1] with intelligent user interaction [2], enabling early detection through real-time data and user behavior analysis. This allows timely responses like load reallocation and predictive recovery, improving system stability and user experience.Advances in AI—especially NLP [2], large language models (LLMs), and reinforcement learning [1]—enable agents to learn, adapt, and communicate autonomously, making them ideal for dynamic SaaS environments.

This paper presents a detailed study on the design, fault tolerance, and integration of Proactive AI Agents in enterprise SaaS systems. The analysis includes a classification of agent types, discussion of resilience techniques in distributed systems, and user-focused technologies. It also outlines an architectural framework to support real-world implementation. The discussion also encompasses key deployment challenges like computational demands and privacy concerns [3]. The goal is to provide both theoretical and practical insights for using intelligent agents in enterprise-level cloud services.

2. Definition and characteristics of AI agents

2.1. Definition of AI agents

An AI Agent is a system that can understand its environment, process information, make decisions, and take actions to achieve specific goals. It works independently and focuses on achieving set objectives [4]. With abilities like reasoning, planning, and tool use, AI Agents perform well in changing situations by planning and acting in repeated cycles. For example, in enterprise SaaS systems, an AI Agent can automatically adjust resource use when workloads change, without needing human input [4].

Proactive AI Agents are a special type of AI Agent. They react to current changes and predict future events or user needs using data analysis. Then, they take action before problems happen [5]. In enterprise SaaS systems, Proactive AI Agents can detect possible system failures early and take steps, like changing load balancing or reallocating resources, to improve stability and performance. This proactive behavior reduces risks and helps processes run smoothly [5].

2.2. Characteristics of proactive AI agents

The core features of Proactive AI Agents and their real-world SaaS usage are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Key characteristics of proactive AI agents and their SaaS applications

Characteristic

Description

SaaS Application Example

Autonomy

Ability to act independently without human intervention

Automatically reallocates resources based on real-time workload changes [4]

Predictive Capability

Identifies potential problems or user needs using data and ML

Detects early signs of failure from logs and schedules preemptive maintenance [6]

Learning Ability

Learns from feedback and improves over time

Reinforcement learning improves failure prediction and system behavior adaptation [7]

User Interaction Capability

Communicates with users via NLP and interfaces

Guides users through tasks via chat or voice support in real-time [8]

3. Classification of AI agents in SaaS

AI Agents in SaaS platforms can be categorized by both their functional roles and architectural structure. Functionally, there are three main types of agents. Failure prediction agents detect anomalies and anticipate system failures by analyzing logs and performance metrics using machine learning techniques, helping prevent disruptions in advance [9,10]. User guidance agents provide real-time support through natural language processing (NLP) and behavior modeling, often implemented as chatbots or assistants that help users complete tasks more effectively [8]. Task automation agents handle routine and repetitive operations by applying scripting, rule-based logic, or programming-by-demonstration to reduce manual work and improve system efficiency [11].

Architecturally, AI Agents can be organized as either single-agent systems, where each agent focuses on a specific task, or multi-agent systems, where several agents collaborate to handle different aspects of the platform such as support, billing, or data management. Multi-agent systems provide better scalability, adaptability, and fault tolerance in dynamic SaaS environments.

4. Fault tolerance mechanisms of AI agents in distributed systems

4.1. Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) in distributed systems

Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) is important for keeping distributed systems stable, especially when some parts of the system act in unexpected or harmful ways. In Distributed Machine Learning (DML), BFT helps make AI Agents more reliable.

BFT methods include filtering, coding strategies, and using blockchain [12]. Filtering works by detecting and ignoring incorrect data (like strange gradients). For example, in the Distributed Stochastic Gradient Descent (D-SGD) algorithm, some filtering techniques can handle a number of faulty agents without affecting learning accuracy. This has been tested in neural network experiments [13]. An overview of the fault-tolerant process used by AI Agents under BFT is shown in Figure 1.

/word/media/image1.png

Figure 1: Fault-tolerant workflow based on byzantine mechanism

Coding strategies use extra computation or data copies to recover from errors. Blockchain keeps records secure and traceable, making it easier to trust what each node does [12]. However, BFT in DML still faces challenges, like keeping data private, handling high communication costs, and ensuring training still works well in both synchronous and asynchronous setups.

4.2. The importance of consistency protocols

In distributed systems, consistency protocols make sure all parts of the system share the same view of what's happening. This is especially important when AI Agents work together, such as during model updates. BFT methods and communication protocols (synchronous or asynchronous) help keep nodes in sync, even if some of them fail. Although there aren't many consistency protocols made just for AI Agents, ideas from distributed systems can be applied. For example, "eventual consistency" in cloud systems can also be useful for AI Agents that work in distributed settings [14].

4.3. Fault prediction capabilities of AI agents

AI Agents can predict faults by using data analysis with machine learning and deep learning. They constantly monitor logs, performance data, and other system signals. If something seems off, the Agent can respond early—by adjusting loads, moving resources, or fixing problems before they grow [14]. Deep learning models are especially good at handling complex data and are useful in training neural networks in DML systems. For example, gradient filtering strategies have shown good results in resisting Byzantine faults and perform well compared to other methods [13]. AI Agents can also use reinforcement learning to learn from feedback and improve over time. This helps them adapt to new conditions and become better at predicting and handling faults [14].

5. Applications of AI agents in user guidance and personalization

AI Agents play an important role in helping users and providing personalized services, especially in SaaS systems. They use tools like Natural Language Processing (NLP), context awareness, and predictive analytics to offer the right support at the right time. When combined with large language models (LLMs), AI Agents can plan complex tasks, improve workflows, and provide smarter assistance.

5.1. The role of Large Language Models (LLMs)

LLMs give AI Agents stronger abilities in planning and tool use. With LLMs, Agents can handle multi-step tasks, guide users through complex work, and manage full workflows. Embedding these agents within physical and virtual environments facilitates the processing and interpretation of visual and contextual data, which is critical for creating sophisticated and context-aware AI systems [15]. In academic tools, for example, LLMs can help users find papers, answer detailed questions, and speed up research. LLMs can also process different types of input—text, images, and voice—making their responses more accurate and useful. Studies show that LLM-based Agents perform well in planning tasks, especially when multiple steps are involved [16].

5.2. Predictive analytics for proactive assistance

Predictive analytics allows AI Agents to predict user needs and solve problems before they happen. By studying past data and trends, Agents can guess what users might need and prepare answers in advance. In customer service, this reduces waiting times and helps solve problems faster. These Agents can also manage resources or trigger maintenance tasks before issues appear, making the system work more smoothly. Research confirms that predictive personalization improves user experience, like adjusting smart devices to fit user habits. In SaaS platforms, this lowers downtime and improves how well the system runs [17].

6. Integration and deployment in SaaS systems

6.1. Integration methods of AI agents in SaaS

Integrating AI Agents into SaaS systems can be achieved through several methods, each with different trade-offs in flexibility, performance, and complexity. A widely adopted approach is API integration, where Agents access SaaS features by invoking exposed interfaces. This allows them to retrieve system data, trigger workflows, or send notifications, and is favored for its simplicity and compatibility with existing architectures [18,19]. Another method involves tool usage frameworks, such as LangChain and Microsoft Autogen. These frameworks offer built-in capabilities for tool chaining and external service interaction, enabling Agents to perform multi-step tasks without writing low-level orchestration code [20]. This is especially valuable in applications requiring dynamic tool composition or access to large ecosystems.

Direct embedding integrates the Agent directly within the backend logic of the SaaS platform, granting full access to internal APIs and infrastructure. This supports real-time performance but demands careful architectural design to avoid disrupting existing workflows [18]. For example, integrating multi-agent systems with case-based reasoning has been shown to enhance dynamic resource allocation in cloud environments [21]. Lastly, memory systems help AI Agents maintain contextual continuity by storing past interactions, user preferences, and intermediate states. This capability is crucial for LLM-based Agents in supporting personalization and coherent multi-turn conversations [18,20]. Each of these integration strategies plays a vital role, and the best choice depends on the system’s architecture, expected performance, and the level of agent autonomy required [22].

6.2. Real-world application cases

According to Table 2, AI Agents demonstrate successful applications across multiple enterprise domains.

Table 2: Real-world applications of AI agents in enterprise SaaS

Company

Application Area

Impact

Vodafone (Telecom)

Customer Service

AI Agents handle over 70% of customer inquiries, reducing human support and response time [18]

Insight Canada (Tech)

Human Resources

Process over 80% of routine employee questions, freeing HR for complex tasks [18]

Intesa Sanpaolo (Finance)

IT Operations

Cut average IT issue resolution time by 68%, improving system reliability [18]

Persistent (Engineering)

Knowledge Management

Reduced research time by 63%, improving information retrieval efficiency [18]

These case studies demonstrate the potential of AI Agents in SaaS, not only enhancing system efficiency but also significantly improving the overall user experience.

6.3. Deployment considerations

Key deployment factors and related risks are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Deployment considerations for AI agents in SaaS

Aspect

Description

Potential Risk

Computational Resources

LLM-based agents require high compute power

May impact performance or inflate operational costs

System Integration Complexity

Deep integration needed with SaaS components

May destabilize legacy or monolithic systems

Multi-Tenant Adaptability

Must cater to diverse tenant-specific needs

Difficult to generalize responses or behaviors

Lifecycle Management

Agents require updates, monitoring, and versioning

Poor oversight may lead to errors or security flaws

6.4. Data processing challenges

AI Agents introduce a range of data-related risks and complications, including data privacy concerns, limited model explainability, task cascading errors, and vulnerability to adversarial attacks. These challenges necessitate robust safeguards such as federated learning, explainable AI, input filtering, and attack detection [22].

7. Discussion

Proactive AI Agents bring major improvements to enterprise SaaS systems. They help systems recover from errors, support users in real time, and improve overall user experience. But despite these benefits, there are still challenges and limitations that need attention. The architecture of proactive AI Agents includes many modules, such as perception, planning, reasoning, memory, and learning. These parts work together to make the Agent more intelligent and independent. This complexity can lead to challenges. When multiple agents work together or when different modules share information, issues like data inconsistency and context loss can occur. These problems may lower system performance and stability. So, making sure all parts work smoothly together is still a big challenge.

Data privacy and security are also serious concerns. To provide personalized help and predict failures, AI Agents must access user behavior data and system logs. This raises the risk of privacy breaches—especially from issues like model leaks or harmful input data. These risks can lead to wrong actions or data exposure, which not only harms user trust but also causes business risks. Also, deep learning models are often hard to interpret, making it difficult to understand how the Agent makes decisions. This further reduces transparency. Another challenge is system performance. In large-scale SaaS platforms, Agents using large language models (LLMs) often run slowly and use a lot of computing power. This increases operational expenses and may affect user experience. In systems with many users (multi-tenant), it is even harder to meet everyone’s needs while keeping service quality stable.

Even with these issues, Proactive AI Agents offer strong benefits. Their ability to predict problems and learn from feedback allows them to resolve issues before they become serious. They can also adjust to user habits, offering customized guidance that improves satisfaction and engagement. Architecturally, their modular design fits well with SaaS microservices, making future upgrades easier.

New technologies may help solve current problems. For example: Federated learning allows model training without sharing raw data, which improves privacy. Explainable AI (XAI) helps users understand the Agent’s decisions, increasing trust.

Edge AI runs part of the Agent’s logic closer to the user, reducing cloud load and improving speed. In short, even though Proactive AI Agents have challenges, they offer real value to enterprise SaaS systems. Balancing reliability, security, and performance will be key to their future success.

8. Conclusion

This paper studied how Proactive AI Agents can help enterprise SaaS systems become more reliable and user-friendly. These agents can predict problems, learn from data, and support users in real time. On the system side, they use fault-tolerant methods like Byzantine protocols and machine learning to find and fix errors early. On the user side, they use tools like NLP and large language models to give helpful and timely support. The main contribution of this paper is a full overview of how Proactive AI Agents can be used in SaaS. It explains both the technical design and how these agents work with users. The paper also offers a clear system structure and shows how to connect the agents with real SaaS platforms. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies that combines fault tolerance with user guidance in proactive agents.

Still, there are some challenges. It is not easy to add AI Agents to old systems, and doing so may require big changes. Furthermore, these agents need to access sensitive user data, which raises privacy risks. Another issue is that deep learning models often make decisions that are hard to understand. Lastly, some AI Agents, especially those using large models, need strong computing resources, which may slow down the system. In real-world use, this paper’s ideas can help SaaS companies reduce downtime, save user effort, and improve the service experience. We also showed real cases where companies already use similar agents with good results.

Looking to the future, Proactive AI Agents may use edge computing to run faster and reduce pressure on cloud systems. New methods like explicable AI can help people trust the agents more. Federated learning is one privacy tool that can be used to safeguard user data. Also, making agents work together better will be important in large systems. In summary, Proactive AI Agents are a strong tool for the future of SaaS. They can help systems run better, support users more effectively, and reduce errors. Their success will depend on good design and teamwork between engineers, AI experts, and user experience researchers.


References

[1]. Nama P, Reddy P, Pattanayak S K. Cognitive Cloud Computing: Harnessing AI to Enable Proactive Fault Prediction and Resource Allocation in Complex Cloud Systems[J]. Well Testing Journal, 2022, 31(1): 36-63.

[2]. Kalogiannidis S, Kalfas D, Papaevangelou O, et al. The role of artificial intelligence technology in predictive risk assessment for business continuity: A case study of Greece[J]. Risks, 2024, 12(2): 19.

[3]. Tuyishime E, Balan T C, Cotfas P A, et al. Enhancing cloud security—proactive threat monitoring and detection using a siem-based approach[J]. Applied Sciences, 2023, 13(22): 12359.

[4]. Masterman T, Besen S, Sawtell M, et al. The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584, 2024.

[5]. Zhang C, Yang K, Hu S, et al. Proagent: building proactive cooperative agents with large language models[C]//Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2024, 38(16): 17591-17599.

[6]. Ucar A, Karakose M, Kırımça N. Artificial intelligence for predictive maintenance applications: key components, trustworthiness, and future trends[J]. Applied Sciences, 2024, 14(2): 898.

[7]. Sivamayil K, Rajasekar E, Aljafari B, et al. A systematic study on reinforcement learning based applications[J]. Energies, 2023, 16(3): 1512.

[8]. Mariani M M, Hashemi N, Wirtz J. Artificial intelligence empowered conversational agents: A systematic literature review and research agenda[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2023, 161: 113838.

[9]. Singh A, Bhatia R, Singhrova A. Taxonomy of machine learning algorithms in software fault prediction using object oriented metrics[J]. Procedia computer science, 2018, 132: 993-1001.

[10]. Bhandari K, Kumar K, Sangal A L. Data quality issues in software fault prediction: a systematic literature review[J]. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2023, 56(8): 7839-7908.

[11]. Barenkamp M, Rebstadt J, Thomas O. Applications of AI in classical software engineering[J]. AI Perspectives, 2020, 2(1): 1.

[12]. Bouhata D, Moumen H, Mazari J A, et al. Byzantine fault tolerance in distributed machine learning: a survey[J]. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 2024: 1-59.

[13]. Gupta N, Liu S, Vaidya N H. Byzantine fault-tolerant distributed machine learning using stochastic gradient descent (sgd) and norm-based comparative gradient elimination (cge)[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04699, 2020

[14]. Prakashchand L. Fault Tolerance in Distributed Systems: The Role of AI Agents in Ensuring System Reliability[J].

[15]. Durante Z, Huang Q, Wake N, et al. Agent ai: Surveying the horizons of multimodal interaction, 2024[J]. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2401.03568.

[16]. Feng K J, Pu K, Latzke M, et al. Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agents[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10999, 2024.

[17]. Dritsas E, Trigka M, Troussas C, et al. Multimodal Interaction, Interfaces, and Communication: A Survey[J]. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2025, 9(1): 6.

[18]. Krishnan N. AI Agents: Evolution, Architecture, and Real-World Applications[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12687, 2025.

[19]. Xi Z, Chen W, Guo X, et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey[J]. Science China Information Sciences, 2025, 68(2): 121101.

[20]. Masterman T, Besen S, Sawtell M, et al. The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584, 2024.

[21]. De la Prieta F, Rodríguez-González S, Chamoso P, et al. An intelligent approach to allocating resources within an agent-based cloud computing platform[J]. Applied Sciences, 2020, 10(12): 4361.

[22]. Ruan J, Chen Y, Zhang B, et al. Tptu: Task planning and tool usage of large language model-based ai agents[C]//NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop. 2023.


Cite this article

Chu,M. (2025). Fault-tolerant Mechanisms and Dynamic User Guidance for Proactive AI Agents in Enterprise SaaS Environments. Applied and Computational Engineering,160,232-238.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer/Publisher's Note

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

About volume

Volume title: Proceedings of CONF-SEML 2025 Symposium: Machine Learning Theory and Applications

ISBN:978-1-80590-149-5(Print) / 978-1-80590-150-1(Online)
Editor:Hui-Rang Hou
Conference date: 18 May 2025
Series: Applied and Computational Engineering
Volume number: Vol.160
ISSN:2755-2721(Print) / 2755-273X(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

References

[1]. Nama P, Reddy P, Pattanayak S K. Cognitive Cloud Computing: Harnessing AI to Enable Proactive Fault Prediction and Resource Allocation in Complex Cloud Systems[J]. Well Testing Journal, 2022, 31(1): 36-63.

[2]. Kalogiannidis S, Kalfas D, Papaevangelou O, et al. The role of artificial intelligence technology in predictive risk assessment for business continuity: A case study of Greece[J]. Risks, 2024, 12(2): 19.

[3]. Tuyishime E, Balan T C, Cotfas P A, et al. Enhancing cloud security—proactive threat monitoring and detection using a siem-based approach[J]. Applied Sciences, 2023, 13(22): 12359.

[4]. Masterman T, Besen S, Sawtell M, et al. The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584, 2024.

[5]. Zhang C, Yang K, Hu S, et al. Proagent: building proactive cooperative agents with large language models[C]//Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2024, 38(16): 17591-17599.

[6]. Ucar A, Karakose M, Kırımça N. Artificial intelligence for predictive maintenance applications: key components, trustworthiness, and future trends[J]. Applied Sciences, 2024, 14(2): 898.

[7]. Sivamayil K, Rajasekar E, Aljafari B, et al. A systematic study on reinforcement learning based applications[J]. Energies, 2023, 16(3): 1512.

[8]. Mariani M M, Hashemi N, Wirtz J. Artificial intelligence empowered conversational agents: A systematic literature review and research agenda[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2023, 161: 113838.

[9]. Singh A, Bhatia R, Singhrova A. Taxonomy of machine learning algorithms in software fault prediction using object oriented metrics[J]. Procedia computer science, 2018, 132: 993-1001.

[10]. Bhandari K, Kumar K, Sangal A L. Data quality issues in software fault prediction: a systematic literature review[J]. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2023, 56(8): 7839-7908.

[11]. Barenkamp M, Rebstadt J, Thomas O. Applications of AI in classical software engineering[J]. AI Perspectives, 2020, 2(1): 1.

[12]. Bouhata D, Moumen H, Mazari J A, et al. Byzantine fault tolerance in distributed machine learning: a survey[J]. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 2024: 1-59.

[13]. Gupta N, Liu S, Vaidya N H. Byzantine fault-tolerant distributed machine learning using stochastic gradient descent (sgd) and norm-based comparative gradient elimination (cge)[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04699, 2020

[14]. Prakashchand L. Fault Tolerance in Distributed Systems: The Role of AI Agents in Ensuring System Reliability[J].

[15]. Durante Z, Huang Q, Wake N, et al. Agent ai: Surveying the horizons of multimodal interaction, 2024[J]. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2401.03568.

[16]. Feng K J, Pu K, Latzke M, et al. Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agents[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10999, 2024.

[17]. Dritsas E, Trigka M, Troussas C, et al. Multimodal Interaction, Interfaces, and Communication: A Survey[J]. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2025, 9(1): 6.

[18]. Krishnan N. AI Agents: Evolution, Architecture, and Real-World Applications[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12687, 2025.

[19]. Xi Z, Chen W, Guo X, et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey[J]. Science China Information Sciences, 2025, 68(2): 121101.

[20]. Masterman T, Besen S, Sawtell M, et al. The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584, 2024.

[21]. De la Prieta F, Rodríguez-González S, Chamoso P, et al. An intelligent approach to allocating resources within an agent-based cloud computing platform[J]. Applied Sciences, 2020, 10(12): 4361.

[22]. Ruan J, Chen Y, Zhang B, et al. Tptu: Task planning and tool usage of large language model-based ai agents[C]//NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop. 2023.