Comparing Gen-AI Architectures for Enterprise KPI Optimization

Executive Summary

Multiple macro trends aligned to create unprecedented pressure on companies to seek new efficiency gains. The transformational potential of generative AI architectures in mining, analyzing, and leveraging operational data presents a unique opportunity for enterprises to not only streamline their operations but also discover untapped avenues for growth. This article delves into a comparative analysis of various generative AI architectures, examining their capabilities and limitations in the context of KPI optimization.

Our survey spans from Large Language Models to sophisticated DB Knowledge Mining Agents, encompassing intermediary models like fine-tuned LLMs, Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), and LLMs coupled with code interpreters. Each architecture is qualitatively evaluated against a standard scorecard focusing on dimensions such as grounding/validation on operational data, Precise Quantitative Insights, new knowledge discovery, transparency and explainability, knowledge update frequency, responsiveness, ideation bias reduction, and DB analysis scale.

Key insights highlight that while Vanilla LLMs offer high simplicity and responsiveness, they fall short on grounding/validation on operational data, precise quantitative insights, and ideation bias reduction. In contrast, DB Knowledge Mining Agents excel across all evaluated dimensions, demonstrating superior capability in grounding their outputs in real, operational data, providing Precise Quantitative Insights, discovering new knowledge, and managing biases effectively. However, this comes at the cost of higher technical complexity and requires more time to integrate.

This whitepaper underscores the importance of selecting the right generative AI architecture tailored to an enterprise's specific needs and operational challenges. It provides actionable insights into how businesses can leverage AI to uncover hidden patterns in data, enhance decision-making, and ultimately achieve operational excellence. As AI continues to evolve, understanding these architectures' nuanced strengths and limitations will be crucial for businesses aiming to stay at the forefront of innovation and competitive advantage.

Introduction

A comprehensive study by MIT Sloan Management Review and BCG, involving over 3,000 respondents from more than 25 industries, found that organizations employing AI to improve or create new KPIs realized enhanced business benefits. AI-driven KPIs are more forward-looking and connected, leading to substantial improvements over legacy performance metrics.

The research underscores that AI-enriched KPIs, or "smart KPIs", offer predictive insights and situational awareness, fostering better coordination among corporate functions. This points to AI's capacity for providing quantitative insights and managing biases by producing more aligned and predictive KPIs. Examples include General Electric and Sanofi, which utilize smart predictive and prescriptive KPIs for forecasting and corrective actions, respectively (MIT Sloan).

The application of AI in developing KPIs has also shown to discover interdependencies among indicators, suggesting AI's capability for new knowledge discovery. By creating KPI "ensembles" that bundle distinct KPIs for connected business activities, AI helps uncover hidden patterns and relationships, thereby grounding decisions in operational data and enhancing cross-functional performance The emphasis on making KPIs more visible and transparent as highlighted in the research suggests that AI can contribute to greater transparency and explainability in operational decision-making. This aligns with the requirement for AI systems to be understandable by humans, particularly in how decisions or recommendations are derived.

As enterprises navigate the promise and complexities of integrating generative AI into their workflows, choosing the right architecture is one of the critical factors of successful implementations.

We would like to survey the capacity of various architectures to leverage knowledge hidden in enterprise’s operational data. This knowledge is essentially patterns  reflecting underlying factors that affect the organization’s most important metrics.

For each architecture we will highlight the key capabilities as well as the challenges and limitations, and summarize them in a score-card across the following dimensions:

‍

Methodology

Our objective is to provide a qualitative comprehensive assessment covering both technical and practical aspects of each architecture. The survey is based on a large number of conversations with industry experts from hyperscalers and system integrators, enterprises in various stages of Gen-AI implementation and our research team.

Selection of AI Architectures

We selected a range of AI architectures for analysis, including LLMs, Fine-tuned LLMs, LLMs + RAG, LLM + Code Interpreter, and DB Knowledge Mining Agents. These were chosen based on their prevalence in current discussions and applications in the field of AI and their potential impact on KPI optimization.

Criteria for comparison

• Grounding / Validation on Operational Data: This dimension assesses the ability of a Gen-AI architecture to base its outputs and insights on real, operational data from the enterprise. It evaluates whether the architecture can validate its hypotheses or insights against actual data, ensuring that recommendations are not just theoretically sound but practically applicable.

• Precise Quantitative Insights: This parameter evaluates whether the architecture can analyze data quantitatively to provide insights that are measurable and precise. It's crucial for making data-driven decisions where numerical accuracy is essential.

• New Knowledge-Discovery: This dimension examines the architecture's ability to generate new insights or discover unknown patterns within the data. It's a measure of the architecture's innovativeness and its capacity to contribute to knowledge expansion within an organization.

• Transparency and Explainability: This assesses how easily the processes and decisions of the architecture can be understood by humans. It is critical for trust and for the practical application of AI insights, where stakeholders may need to understand the rationale behind AI-driven recommendations.

• Knowledge Update Frequency: This parameter measures how frequently the architecture can update its knowledge base with new knowledge on the actual drivers / factors of KPIs as well as interventions that can improve it. High update frequency is vital for keeping the AI's insights relevant in rapidly changing operational environments and across many KPIs.

• Responsiveness: Measures the speed at which the AI can answer queries re. Insights based on its most up to date knowledge. High responsiveness is critical to create interactive experiences.

• Ideation Bias Reduction: Evaluates the architecture's ability to identify, manage, and mitigate biases in its operations or outputs. Effective Ideation Bias Reduction: ensures fairness, accuracy, and reliability in the AI's insights and decisions.

• DB Analysis Scale: Assesses the architecture's capability to analyze large volumes of data, particularly from databases. This parameter is crucial for tasks that require deep data analysis, like comprehensive market research or extensive operational optimization.
• Architecture Simplicity: The complexity of the architecture with focus on deployment and operationalization architecture.

• Token Efficiency: The order of magnitude of LLM calls in relation to the # of evaluated ideas.

These criteria were selected to cover the range of capabilities necessary for effectively leveraging AI for KPI optimization in enterprise environments.

The evaluation considers how well each architecture performs across these dimensions, identifying their strengths and weaknesses in the context of optimizing KPIs and leveraging enterprise operational data for strategic insights and operational improvements.

Criteria for comparison

The table presented below offers a summary of the scorecards for the different generative AI architectures evaluated in this article, focusing on their capacity to generate insights for operational enhancement derived from database analysis

Here's the chart showcasing the different characteristics of the surveyed architectures across the discussed metrics:

The following sections provide a detailed overview of each one of the architectures and offer a score-card with explainations behind each one of the scores.

The Naive approach: Vanilla LLMs

We start our architecture survey with the simplest architecture, which simply involves a high-performance Large Language Model (LLM) such as GPT-4, Claude Opus or Gemini Ultra, all which have demonstrated emergent common-sense reasoning capabilities. When combined with their vast knowledge, it’s natural to consider them as useful tools for bouncing ideas off. They can read customer feedback, provide qualitative insights into user engagement issues, or propose a personalized language for a marketing campaign. These models excel in generating coherent narratives and engaging content, leveraging their extensive training on diverse datasets. However, their application in operational decision-making faces critical challenges, primarily due to their limitations in grounding and validation against real operational data.

Real-world Implications: A key risk to consider is basing decisions on inaccurate or entirely fabricated insights. For instance, in a business context, an LLM might generate a convincing analysis of market trends that, in reality, is not supported by current data. This misalignment can lead businesses to pursue ineffective strategies, allocate resources suboptimally, or miss out on crucial market opportunities.

Scorecard:

• No grounding / validation on operational data: LLMs are notorious for their ability to produce coherent and convincing nonsense. Lacking the ability to test the ideas on actual data, there’s a real risk of misleading “insights” and recommendations being produced.
• No Precise Quantitative Insights: LLMs demonstrate significantly better performance when it comes to qualitative tasks compared to quantitative ones, as the latter require computational capabilities.
• No new knowledge-discovery: A researcher makes a discovery, then she captures this new knowledge by writing a paper. The LLM would then be trained on a corpus of documents with that paper included. Researcher ≠ LLM. LLMs don’t discover new knowledge. They are an encapsulation of current knowledge.
• No transparency and explainability: While LLMs can produce convincing explanations for any output they previously generated, these explanations are simply a confirmation bias in disguise. The LLM will first generate an “intuitive” result, and then will do its best to generate an explanation for the same biased result. The transparency and explainability of LLMs remain complex issues, partly due to the models' inherent biases and the opaque nature of their reasoning processes. The diversity of sources contributing to biases, from demographic to cultural and beyond, complicates efforts to make LLM operations fully transparent or explainable (source).
• Low knowledge update frequency: Outdated information, while being both a form of a bias and a factor contributing to hallucinations, is important to call-out as a fundamental weakness in all LLMs. Their knowledge is a “snapshot in time”. As such, they may easily contradict the reality captured in the operational data. LLMs are expensive to train, leading to rather infrequent updates and knowledge cutoffs by all LLMs available in the market today. Most of the models out there are not being updated more than once a quarter.
• High Responsiveness: Despite the vast number of parameters and high training costs, their architectures are fairly simple and the performance is stable and predictable, ranging from hundreds to thousands of tokens per second per GPU. In this architecture no additional resources or components are accessed, which keeps the latency bound by the GPU capacity and model size.
• No Ideation Bias Reduction: LLMs are inherently biased, and their ideation and analysis consistently gravitates towards their biases. Adding guardrails for alignment results in an endless whack-a-mole game, as Google demonstrated with Gemini. The only robust approach to address bias is to drastically open the aperture, systematically evaluating a broad and diverse set of ideas on real operational data, and empirically disqualifying the majority of ideas. More on that towards the end of the article.
• Low DB Analysis scale: LLMs can be used to generate database queries (aka Text2SQL), yet they are unable to conduct autonomous systematic analysis of the data. LLMs are also significantly constrained by the size of the context window - even with a 1M-tokens context which is offered by Gemini 1.5 Pro, they are limited to only viewing and analyzing a small subset of the data at a time, and therefore can’t be used for full DB analysis.
• High Architecture Simplicity: While the overall complexity is use-case and implementation specific, deploying and querying LLMs is generally fairly straightforward, particularly when using an LLM-as-a-service in an inference-only scenario. Naturally, more functionality comes with more complexity, as covered below.
• Low Token efficiency: The number of tokens is linearly proportional to the number of requested ideas, and the variance in the length of ideas is limited. Therefore the number of input + tokens is O(# number requested ideas)

Mitigation Strategies: Despite these challenges, there are strategies that businesses can employ to leverage the strengths of LLMs while minimizing risks. These include approaches combining LLM outputs with analytical tools, continuous training and update, RAG and others.

Fine-tuning LLMs with operational data

What is fine-tuning?

LLM fine-tuning is the process of adjusting LLM weights based on a specific dataset or task to improve its performance in that domain. This allows the model to generate responses that are more accurate or relevant to the fine-tuning data, enhancing its applicability to specialized topics or industries. Fine-tuning a large language model involves preparing a specialized dataset and then training the model on this data to adjust its parameters, enhancing its performance on specific tasks while employing techniques to prevent overfitting. This process refines the model's abilities, making it more adept at the targeted tasks without losing its general applicability, often requiring iterative evaluation and adjustment to achieve the desired balance.

LLMs can be fine-tuned with structured operational data from CRMs, ERPs, and logs. This significantly enhances their ability to contextualize and interpret the unique nuances of a business. This adaptation enables LLMs to provide more contextualized and better articulated insights, automate nuanced customer interactions, and support decision-making processes.

However, the application of these fine-tuned LLMs, is marked by inherent limitations. They excel in identifying textual patterns, while are limited in analysis of time series, geo-spatial or complex relational structures. Thus, while fine-tuned LLMs can infer from several data modalities that can be easily serialized as text, offering qualitative insights based on the LLM’s “intuition” and biases, they generally do not have  the ability to quantify the insights, including their impact, significance, confidence and correlation with the KPI metric. In addition, they are still limited to only small portions of the data due to the context window length limitations.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of fine-tuned LLMs allows businesses to leverage them most effectively. These models are invaluable for generating insights from textual data, automating responses based on pattern recognition, and identifying potential trends or issues from historical and contextual analysis. For holistic insight discovery, especially in the presence of observational time series data (e.g. transactional data), fine-tuned LLMs lack the required quantitative time series analysis skills. Integrating LLMs with dedicated analytical tools and models can offer a comprehensive approach. This synergy between LLMs' text-based analytical prowess and traditional quantitative analysis  ensures a holistic strategy for data-driven decision-making, maximizing operational efficiency and strategic foresight.

Scorecard:

• No grounding / validation on operational data: While fine-tuning feeds additional highly relevant and nuanced information into the LLMs, it doesn’t fundamentally change their modus operandi or make them immune to hallucinations. We do expect to see a slightly lower degree of hallucinations but not enough to set it one notch above Vanilla LLMs.
• No Precise Quantitative Insights: While fine-tuning is all about changing the LLM weights, it doesn’t give it the ability to compute and generate answers based on quantitative analysis.
• No new knowledge-discovery: Fine-tuning LLMs will definitely add new knowledge into the LLM. However, this knowledge needs to be discovered by someone, captured in writing and then being used during the fine tuning. Fine-tuning doesn’t address the need to discover the knowledge in the first place. Discovering correlations in structured data using Large Language Models (LLMs) involves understanding the structure of the data, serialization techniques for processing, and the models' capabilities in parsing and retrieving information from tables. Studies have shown that LLMs can be fine-tuned or instructed to perform tasks involving structured data such as tables. However, challenges remain in dealing with the complexity and diversity of structured data, including handling different table formats, serialization methods, and ensuring efficient processing without loss of critical information (ar5iv).
• No transparency and explainability: Fine-tuned LLMs will continue to fabricate explanations for biased answers, just like their non-fine-tuned ancestors.
• Medium knowledge update frequency: Fine-tuning is a pragmatic way to refine LLMs based on new available knowledge. The cost of fine-tuning is typically considerably lower than training the model from scratch, therefore allowing it to perform this step more frequently. This approach is still insufficient for providing real time knowledge, which is possible with RAG given a sufficiently large context window. The frequency of updates can vary significantly based on the resources of the operating entity and the specific configurations of the LLM; thus, stating a uniform update frequency might oversimplify this aspect.
• High Responsiveness: Responsiveness remains high after fine-tuning as the architecture remains the same as of a non-fine-tuned LLM.
• Medium Ideation Bias Reduction: Fine tuning helps bring the nuances and additional context into LLMs. It can be used specifically to address and mitigate biases by incorporating diverse and balanced data. After fine-tuning, there will still be a bias towards the existing textual knowledge in documents, which as mentioned above, may be outdated or biased towards existing human knowledge. Fine-tuning doesn’t inherently create alignment with the reality reflected in the data.
• Low DB Analysis scale: It is possible to use vast amounts of data to fine-tune LLMs. LLMs operating in the text, image, audio, video. They have blind-spot when it comes to a relational structured data modality. Fine-tuning would keep the LLM within the same modalities as the original foundation model.
• High Architecture Simplicity: Just like vanilla LLMs, this architecture is composed of the fine-tuned LLM only.
• Low Token efficiency: Just like with non-fine-tuned LLMs, here too the number of tokens is linearly proportional to the number of requested ideas, and the variance in the length of ideas is limited. Therefore the number of input + tokens is O(# number requested ideas).

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)

The integration of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) allows for the augmentation of LLM outputs with up-to-date, contextually-relevant information fetched from documents. This ensures that the AI system is not just relying on its pre-existing knowledge (which might be outdated) but can access and incorporate current data. In the context of e-commerce, RAG could be utilized to fetch the latest customer reviews or product information, providing a more accurate and grounded understanding of the causes behind cart abandonment. This method helps mitigate some of the limitations of LLMs by reducing hallucinations and producing responses based on up-to-date information. For example, internal reports on factors impacting user engagement may be incorporated into the context. It’s important to note that manually produced reports may be outdated, biased and insufficiently granular.

Scorecard:

• Medium grounding / validation on operational data: RAG allows retrieving relevant documents and incorporating them into the context. The effectiveness of RAG for grounding and validation strongly depends on the quality and relevance of the documents it retrieves. However, operational data differs from documents in terms of modality, velocity, complexity and granularity. Effectively, RAG has a blindspot for high velocity and granularity structured data (IOT, CRMs). RAG also has a query bottleneck. As long as a small number of queries is generated to retrieve documents and feed them into the LLM context, we essentially get a data-validated tunnel-vision solution.
• No Precise Quantitative Insights: LLMs won’t gain any computational capabilities from RAG. Even with more context, we’re still in the qualitative land.
• No new knowledge-discovery: RAG can incorporate existing knowledge from knowledge bases into the LLM context. Furthermore, the synthesis of this information in new contexts can lead to insights that, effectively, constitute new knowledge or hypotheses not explicitly stated in the source material. However LLMs with RAG won’t actually discover new grounded knowledge from raw data, which is currently done by analysts and is in the realm of BI and analytical tools.
• Medium transparency and explainability: The ability of RAG models to reference specific documents for their responses could arguably provide a higher level of transparency and explainability than many other models, as it directly shows the source of information. The robustness, consistency and freshness of the explanation will typically be limited in its coverage to the knowledge in the existing documents, as there’s a manual labor bottleneck when it comes to producing the documents in the first place. Their explainability is limited in its granularity, and the ability to provide quantitative arguments.
• Medium knowledge update frequency: RAG effectively creates an envelope of dynamic knowledge on top of a static knowledge core. The advantage of the RAG architecture is that the knowledge should reflect in the answers as soon as it’s indexed by the search engine or the vector DB. On the other hand, the bottleneck is in the speed of producing the documents, which is limited due to the manual nature of their authoring.
• Medium Responsiveness: RA + G > G. RAG slows down the response, as the process now involves 2 steps: query the index and then call the LLM, rather than just calling the LLM when RAG isn’t involved. The good news is that adding context doesn’t significantly impact latency. According to Databricks, the addition of 512 input tokens increases latency less than the production of 8 additional output tokens in the MPT models
• Medium Ideation Bias Reduction: RAG is capable of retrieving more relevant context, which may serve as an effective counterweight to the biases accumulated in the LLM. However, just like in the case of fine-tuned LLMs, there will be a strong bias towards the existing textual knowledge in documents, which as mentioned above, may be outdated or biased towards existing human knowledge. Fine-tuning doesn’t inherently create alignment with the reality reflected in the data.
• Low DB Analysis scale: LLMs can be used to generate database queries (aka Text2SQL), yet they are unable to conduct autonomous systematic analysis of the data. LLMs are also significantly constrained by the size of the context window - even with a 1M-tokens context which is offered by Gemini 1.5 Pro, they are limited to only viewing and analyzing a small subset of the data at a time, and therefore can’t be used for full DB analysis.
• Medium Architecture Simplicity: In addition to the LLM, this architecture involves a search engine like Elastic / Lucene or a vector DB like Pinecone. In addition, it requires a wrapper code which will query the search engine or the vector DB to retrieve the relevant documents, process and combine them into a prompt. This architecture introduces additional components and additional deployment complexity.
• Low Token efficiency: RAG allows bringing in additional context for validation and refinement of the ideas, but the equation stays the same: the number of tokens is linearly proportional to the number of requested ideas. The variance may be a bit higher as RAG may allow for longer context in some cases. The number of input + tokens is O(# number requested ideas), even if likely higher than the first two architectures by a constant factor.

LLM + Code Interpreter

The code interpreter is capable of executing simple code that the LLM generates.

This architecture combines a code interpreter with the LLM, just like you get on the paid version of ChatGPT and Gemini Advanced.

In the context of KPI optimization, the LLM can generate ideas for relevant database queries, then execute them using the code interpreter.

It’s important to note that ChatGPT’s code interpreter runs in an isolated environment, and therefore can’t communicate with any enterprise database.

However, implementing the same architecture in the enterprise environment, with access to the operational systems like the CRM and the ERP offers some unlocks the ability to evaluate the insights on the actual data.

For example, the AI could identify a common complaint among users about a cumbersome checkout process. The achilles heel of this approach is that it doesn’t solve the “ideation bottleneck”, as it will only test the limited and biased set of ideas that the LLM will generate. DB knowledge mining agents represent a robust approach to resolve this bottleneck.

Scorecard:

• High grounding / validation on operational data: The combination of a Large Language Model (LLM) with a code interpreter allows for direct interaction and validation against operational data, significantly enhancing the grounding of insights in real, actionable data. The effectiveness of this approach in grounding and validation depends heavily on the nature of the code executed and the data it interacts with; in some scenarios, limitations in data access or query complexity might reduce its effectiveness.
• High Precise Quantitative Insights: This architecture enables the generation and execution of database queries or analytical code snippets, providing a mechanism for quantitative analysis and insights.
• Medium new knowledge-discovery: While the LLM can generate hypotheses and queries, the discovery of new knowledge is still somewhat constrained by the ideation capabilities of the LLM and the specific queries it generates. There's an improvement over vanilla LLMs, but it's not fully autonomous in discovering new patterns without explicit prompts.
• Medium transparency and explainability: The ability to generate and execute code or queries can offer some level of transparency and explainability through the output of these operations. However, the logic behind the generated queries or code snippets may not always be clear or justified by the underlying LLM, maintaining a medium level of transparency.
• High knowledge update frequency: The direct interaction with operational data allows for insights to be generated from the most current data available. However, the update frequency is also dependent on the enterprise's capability to provide real-time or near-real-time access to this data.
• Low Responsiveness: The process of generating, validating, and executing code or queries introduces additional steps and complexity, potentially slowing down the responsiveness compared to simpler LLM interactions.
• Medium Ideation Bias Reduction: By directly validating and testing insights against operational data, this architecture can better manage and mitigate biases present in the LLM's training data or inherent assumptions. On the other hand, thie LLM will generate a small number of hypotheses, which will be biased towards what it predicts to be a set plausible hypotheses to test, just like a human analyst would.
• Medium DB Analysis scale: Despite the ability to interact with databases, the scale at which this architecture can perform deep database analysis is limited by the context window and computational capabilities of the LLM and the code interpreter setup.
• Low Simplicity: Integrating an LLM with a code interpreter and ensuring it can securely and effectively access and operate on enterprise operational systems introduces significant complexity compared to more straightforward LLM applications.
• Medium Token efficiency: The code interpreter can incorporate values from the data itself into the evaluated ideas. That allows the # of total ideas to be orders of magnitude higher than the # of LLM calls.

‍

DB Knowledge Mining Agents

“I think AI agentic workflows will drive massive AI progress this year — perhaps even more than the next generation of foundation models. This is an important trend, and I urge everyone who works in AI to pay attention to it.”, Andrew NG on DeepLearning.ai.

DB Knowledge mining agents combine LLMs, RAG, a code interpreter and a systematic, unbiased hypothesis generation component.

This architecture involves the addition of a systematic hypothesis generation and testing process, which generates Billions of queries that combine, transform and aggregate data from multiple sources, measure correlations and discover meaningful patterns. These patterns are then translated to natural language and are fed into the LLM through RAG or in-context. For instance, in e-commerce, this means not only understanding the textual feedback from customers but also analyzing transaction logs, user interaction data, and product performance metrics to identify patterns and possible correlations and drivers of KPIs as well as reason about and propose potential actions to improve the KPIs. For instance, this method may discover that cart abandonment is higher by 30% when the user lives within half a mile from a grocery store. By running billions of queries, DB knowledge mining agents can pinpoint specific factors that lead to abandonment, such as price sensitivity, product availability issues, or checkout process friction, and suggest actionable strategies to address them. This additional knowledge provides critical grounding for LLMs, reduces hallucinations, provides Precise Quantitative Insights and provides additional transparency and explainability by showing the supporting evidence.

The screenshot below shows the enhanced conversational experience enabled by DB knowledge mining agents.

Scorecard:

• Grounding / Validation on Operational Data: High. DB knowledge mining agents excel at grounding their outputs and insights in real, operational data from enterprises. They actively engage with various data sources, validating hypotheses and insights against actual data, which ensures that recommendations are practically applicable and directly relevant to improving KPIs.
• Precise Quantitative Insights: High. These agents are specifically designed to analyze large volumes of data quantitatively, providing precise, measurable insights. Their ability to handle complex data analyses and generate specific, actionable numbers is crucial for making informed, data-driven decisions.
• New Knowledge-Discovery: High. One of the core strengths of DB knowledge mining agents is their ability to autonomously discover new patterns and insights within the data that were not previously known. This capacity for innovation and knowledge expansion is vital for businesses looking to leverage hidden opportunities or address underlying issues affecting their KPIs.
• Transparency and Explainability: High. Unlike simpler AI models, DB knowledge mining agents offer a high degree of transparency and explainability by illustrating the data sources, methodologies, and logical processes behind their conclusions. This makes it easier for stakeholders to understand and trust the insights generated, facilitating more informed decision-making.
• Knowledge Update Frequency: High. These agents can continuously update their knowledge base with new data, ensuring that their insights remain relevant and accurate even as the operational environment evolves. This high update frequency is essential for maintaining the accuracy and relevance of AI-driven insights over time.
• Responsiveness: High. Despite the complex processes involved in generating insights, DB knowledge mining agents are designed for high responsiveness as they operate in the background and constantly update the knowledge base. This enables them to provide timely insights, making them suitable for dynamic operational environments where quick decision-making is crucial.
• Ideation Bias Reduction: High. Through their systematic approach to hypothesis generation and testing, DB knowledge mining agents can effectively identify, manage, and mitigate biases in their operations or outputs. This ensures that the insights and recommendations provided are fair, accurate, and reliable.
• DB Analysis Scale: High. DB knowledge mining agents are capable of analyzing vast volumes of data from multiple sources, making them particularly adept at tasks that require deep, comprehensive data analysis. This ability to handle large-scale data analyses is essential for identifying and leveraging insights that can significantly impact KPI optimization.
• Simplicity: Low. The complexity of integrating LLMs, RAG, a code interpreter, and a systematic hypothesis generation component into a cohesive system makes DB knowledge mining agents more complex to deploy and manage compared to simpler AI architectures.
• High Token efficiency: Not only that the code interpreter can incorporate values from the data itself into the evaluated ideas, but also the entire idea space is generated computationally without calling LLMs. LLMs are called at a post-processing stage to contextualize and summarize the ideas as well as for action recommendations.

‍