Dynamic Agentic AI Expert Profiler System Architecture for Multidomain Intelligence Modeling

arXiv cs.AI / 4/8/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper proposes an agentic AI expert profiler that classifies users’ expertise from natural-language responses into four levels: Novice, Basic, Advanced, and Expert.
  • It introduces a modular, layered system architecture built on LLaMA v3.1 (8B), including text preprocessing, scoring, aggregation, and final classification components.
  • The method is evaluated in two settings—static analysis on 82 participants’ transcripts and a dynamic setup with 402 live interviews using an agentic AI interviewer.
  • In the dynamic evaluation, expertise is estimated after each response (not just at the end), and profiler results align with participant self-ratings at an 83%–97% match rate across domains.
  • Discrepancies are attributed to self-rating bias, unclear user responses, and occasional misinterpretation of nuanced expertise by the language model.

Abstract

In today's artificial intelligence driven world, modern systems communicate with people from diverse backgrounds and skill levels. For human-machine interaction to be meaningful, systems must be aware of context and user expertise. This study proposes an agentic AI profiler that classifies natural language responses into four levels: Novice, Basic, Advanced, and Expert. The system uses a modular layered architecture built on LLaMA v3.1 (8B), with components for text preprocessing, scoring, aggregation, and classification. Evaluation was conducted in two phases: a static phase using pre-recorded transcripts from 82 participants, and a dynamic phase with 402 live interviews conducted by an agentic AI interviewer. In both phases, participant self-ratings were compared with profiler predictions. In the dynamic phase, expertise was assessed after each response rather than at the end of the interview. Across domains, 83% to 97% of profiler evaluations matched participant self-assessments. Remaining differences were due to self-rating bias, unclear responses, and occasional misinterpretation of nuanced expertise by the language model.