A Two-Dimensional Framework for AI Agent Design Patterns: Cognitive Function and Execution Topology
Authors: Jia Huang, Joey Tianyi Zhou
Summary
arXiv:2605. 13850v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing frameworks for LLM-based agent architectures describe systems from a single perspective: industry guides (Anthropic, Google, LangChain) focus on execution topology -- how data flows -- while cognitive science surveys focus on cognitive function -- what the agent does.
Relevance
Read next because A Two-Dimensional Framework for AI Agent Design Patterns: Cognitive Function and Execution Topology overlaps with clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Leakage rate is a usable signal for recovering trigger-shaped phrases on Gaperon-1125-1B without knowing the hidden trigger itself (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: text, class, anth, rate, implement, disambiguate, alone, does. Source: arxiv cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence).
Threat model
Potential threat/caveat for clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)": this item discusses failure, adversarial.
Abstract
arXiv:2605.13850v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing frameworks for LLM-based agent architectures describe systems from a single perspective: industry guides (Anthropic, Google, LangChain) focus on execution topology -- how data flows -- while cognitive science surveys focus on cognitive function -- what the agent does. Neither axis alone disambiguates architecturally distinct systems: the same Orchestrator-Workers topology can implement Plan-and-Execute, Hierarchical Delegation, or Adversarial Verification -- three patterns with fundamentally different failure modes and design trade-offs. We propose a two-dimensional classification that combines (1) a Cognitive Function axis with seven categories (Context Engineering, Memory, Reasoning, Action, Reflection, Collaboration, Governance) and (2) an Execution Topology axis with six structural archetypes (Chain, Route, Parallel, Orchestrate, Loop, Hierarchy). The resulting 7x6 matrix identifies 27 named patterns, 13 with original names. We demonstrate orthogonality through systematic cross-axis analysis, define eight representative patterns in detail, and validate descriptive coverage across four real-world domains (financial lending, legal due diligence, network operations, healthcare triage). Cross-domain analysis yields five empirical laws of pattern selection governing the relationship between environmental constraints (time pressure, action authority, failure cost asymmetry, volume) and architectural choices. The framework provides a principled, framework-neutral, and model-agnostic vocabulary for AI agent architecture design.