This survey synthesizes 257 papers spanning agent evaluation, software assurance, cyber-physical systems, runtime monitoring, and regulatory guidance in order to characterize the validation problem for agentic systems, and concludes with a lifecycle-oriented research agenda centered on bounded-autonomy specifications, adversarial trajectory generation, runtime monitoring, and audit-ready evidence structures.
Abstract
Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation. This behavior stretches validation practice beyond component testing and one-shot input--output evaluation, because acceptable system behavior now depends on how decisions unfold over time and under changing environmental conditions. This survey synthesizes 257 papers spanning agent evaluation, software assurance, cyber-physical systems, runtime monitoring, and regulatory guidance in order to characterize the validation problem for agentic systems. The review is organized around a five-dimension taxonomy covering behavioral, safety, temporal, regulatory, and multi-agent concerns, and uses that taxonomy to map current approaches and expose recurrent coverage gaps. The analysis shows that behavioral evaluation is comparatively mature, while temporal validity, runtime evidence maintenance, regulatory legibility, and open-ended multi-agent systems assurance remain under-developed. Three cross-domain case studies (medical care, industrial operations, smart-mobility systems) provide operational illustrations of how the five taxonomy dimensions recur in safety-critical settings, grounded in the failure patterns documented in the reviewed literature. The paper concludes with a lifecycle-oriented research agenda centered on bounded-autonomy specifications, adversarial trajectory generation, runtime monitoring, and audit-ready evidence structures. The central claim is that trustworthy deployment of agentic AI depends on validating trajectories in context rather than assessing isolated components alone.
Through applied case studies in pharmaceutical discovery and financial systems, common design patterns that make agentic systems successful are analyzed, and practical mitigation strategies for failure modes are discussed, such as verification pipelines, fallback mechanisms, and human-in-the-loop supervision.
Grace Hui Yang, P. Venkit, Hooman Sedghamiz et al.· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM...· 0 citations
This survey establishes workload-level boundaries and connects system architecture, competence acquisition, and evaluation through a seven-dimensional terminal competence profile, and provides a unified basis for studying terminal-mediated agency across software engineering and emerging application domains.
Yi Bin, Xiao-Yang Yuan, Hao Zeng et al.· 1 citation
Synthesizing across four constraint-bound engineering domains, agentic AI trustworthiness is shown to be a single problem, with a path outlined toward a reusable, cross-domain assurance framework analogous to the graded certification regimes used by mature safety-critical engineering fields.
Omar Al-Refai, Ibrahim Shahbaz, A. Husseinat et al.· arXiv.org· 1 citation
A unified, taxonomy-driven, and deployment-oriented survey of agentic AI systems, synthesizing recent advances through a modular reference architecture and a four-dimensional taxonomy that characterizes agents along the axes of autonomy, tool use, collaboration, and safety–governance is presented.
Sparsh Bajoria, Shreyanshu Ranjan, Adhitya M et al.· Cognitive Computation· 0 citations
This work developed AgentInspect, a framework that automatically detects six types of behavioral failures in LangChain-based AI agents by analyzing their execution trajectories across three evaluation settings: a baseline setting using real tool responses, a simulated setting incorporating synthetic tool responses, and...
Ruchira Manke, Mohammad Wardat, Hridesh Rajan et al.· 1 citation
It is argued that agentic AI should be approached as a socio-technical design problem, where interfaces, oversight mechanisms, and evaluation practices are as critical as algorithms.
Timothy Merritt, Alejandro Jarabo-Peñas, Juan Bravo-Arrabal et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.