(last built on: 2026-05-30)
Postdoctoral Researcher
Department of Computer Science
University of Luxembourg
ZLAIRE Workshop
30th May 2026, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou
This talk is about my personal perspective on the current state and future directions of agentic AI research.
In particular, it is focused on Embodied Agents and how should we design them from an ethical point of view.
These slides are partially inspired by the many talks I had with the groups in these days on this topic, and also, by the staying in Hangzhou.
Slides are structured as follows:
The Agents Journey – Twenty-Five Years of Multi-agent Systems (2026)


It is just a matter of time before we see a considerable number of embodied agents in public places.
Also, the nature of these embodied agents will be heterogeneous, with different capabilities and tasks.
Their presence in the society will raise many challenges, including ethical, legal, social, and technical ones.
Need for building embodied agents with ethics as a core design principle.
Defensible refers to the ability of a decision, action, or system to be justified, challenged, audited, and publicly explained through sufficient evidence and reasoning. A defensible system is not merely effective or safe: it must also support accountability, contestability, and governance.
Embodied means that something or someone has a physical form in the real world, as opposed to being purely digital or virtual. Embodied agents can interact with their environment, other agents and humans in a tangible way.
Agent comes from “agere”, i.e., to act. An agent is an entity that can perceive its environment, make decisions, and take actions to achieve specific goals or objectives. It is autonomous, (possibly) self-sufficient, proactive, and (possibly) adaptive.
Modern embodied agents will increasingly operate in shared human environments:
In these contexts, pure optimization is not enough.
An agent should not only ask:
but also:
This requires explicit representations of:
A defensible agent is not simply:
It must also be able to:

Different stakeholders may have:
Examples:
Using the Jiminy framework (The Jiminy Advisor: Moral Agreements Among Stakeholders Based on Norms and Argumentation).
Each stakeholder is modeled as a normative system:
These normative systems are then used as sources of arguments.
Instead of relying on majority voting or fixed priorities, Jiminy tries to reach a moral agreement among stakeholders.
The framework resolves dilemmas through:
The system must also explain:
Argumentation naturally supports explainability, because decisions emerge from explicit reasoning structures.
Therefore, DJ4ME includes an additional agent dedicated to making decisions:
Children are increasingly exposed to:
However, most existing AI systems are designed for adults.
This is particularly problematic in sensitive domains such as:
where safety, trust, and controllability become essential requirements.

QTrobot from LuxAI
AI4Kids investigates how to safely integrate LLMs into embodied agents.
Core idea: LLMs should not operate autonomously, but inside a constrained cognitive architecture.
The project develops a norm-first agent architecture where:
This enables behavior that is:
Research challenges:
Purely digital agents, such as chatbots, have many limitations.
The knowledge at their disposal is obtained by training on huge amount of text.
Interaction is often reduced to a stochastic process of predicting the next token.
Chatbots do not directly experience the world. Their knowledge is mediated through:
As a consequence:
These systems operate in relatively predictable environments and focus on efficiency, precision, and repeatability.
These agents must interact safely and naturally with humans in dynamic social contexts.
We all know the reasons why we need agents and not just passive tools.

Learning does not stop after deployment.
Embodied agents must continuously:
Different decisions require different reasoning speeds.
Future AI will increasingly involve:
Neither paradigm alone appears sufficient.
Reasoning may happen:
Inspired by Kahneman’s dual-process theory.
Fast, reactive, intuitive.
Slow, deliberative, symbolic.
Defensible embodied agents require both.
Embodied systems introduce an additional layer: System 0.
A purely reactive safety layer operating below deliberation.
Analogy with humans:
These actions happen:
For embodied agents, System 0 may include:
Key property: safety must not depend on slow reasoning alone.
System 0 acts as a hard real-time protective layer.
Future embodied agents will likely combine:
It will be crucial to design effective neuro-symbolic frameworks that integrate these components while ensuring safety and accountability.