arXiv:2607. 23532v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Swarms of LLM-assisted autonomous robots are increasingly proposed for cooperative intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) in contested environments.
arXiv:2608.21423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic security uses large-language-model (LLM) agents to plan, dispatch, and interpret security tools. As these systems move from demonstrations to...
The paper investigates how multiple pre‑action controls—authority, resource, and evidence gates—interact in agentic AI systems. It formalizes remediation‑induced control coupling, showing that remediation can invalidate earlier judgments and that the order of remediation matters. The authors propose a remediate‑and‑regate protocol to restore soundness, analyze non‑commuting remediation operators, and demonstrate the approach on a deterministic open‑data artifact with three published engines.
The paper introduces Aegis, a runtime governance system for agentic AI that treats model outputs as action proposals and mediates them through a trusted decision layer before tool execution. Aegis evaluates proposals against active policy, resolves provenance server‑side, fails closed under uncertainty, and routes selected cases through a Senate‑style settlement process. In a sandbox evaluation across 6,300 rows, Aegis prevented all governed mock‑tool applications and risky side‑effect completions, preserving provenance and quorum evidence for all settled cases.
The paper examines how agentic AI systems intended for military command and control are tested and evaluated. It reviews 240 testing practices across eight dimensions and three lifecycle stages, uncovering eight assumptions—grouped into system specifiability, stability, composability, and supervisability—whose validity is weakened by agentic properties. Consequently, test results may meet procedural standards but do not guarantee that fielded behavior matches tested behavior, leading the authors to propose ten assurance claims and suggest that uncertainty be managed through deployment‑time monitoring and defined expiry conditions.
The paper demonstrates that safety mechanisms for autonomous large language model agents fail to compose across iterative loops, as trajectory‑scoped monitors cannot detect attacks whose evidence is spread over multiple iterations. It introduces LoopHarness, a system that maintains a persistent, non‑decaying safety state across loops, bounding unauthorized actions with a constant that does not grow with the number of iterations. The authors provide a comprehensive evaluation protocol, including attacks that require cross‑iteration evidence, module ablations, and adaptive white‑box red‑team testing.
The paper investigates how large language model agents decide whether to persist, stop, or escalate when faced with impossible software‑repair tasks that also involve conflicting test requirements. Using ImpossibleBench tasks and models such as GPT‑5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash, the study varies peer precedent, forged authority claims, instruction wording, and tool friction to observe differing adjudication policies. The authors propose a conflict adjudication framework that maps information to interpretation to action, arguing it better captures agent alignment under competing pressures.
Physical Agentic AI proposes an architecture that links semantic planning with physical execution for robot crews. Each robot exposes a typed skill library, while a foundation model planner decomposes tasks into phases and assigns robot‑skill pairs. A Robot Orchestrator validates and authorizes one skill at a time, ensuring actions are grounded in robot capabilities, system state, and workflow constraints before actuation.
arXiv:2607. 07368v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI control is a family of techniques to prevent an AI with malicious goals from subverting its operator's intent.
The paper introduces Collective Counterfactual Planning (CCP), a formal model describing how teams coordinate tasks that no single member can handle alone, constrained not by capability but by representational geometry. CCP defines four critical gates—exogenous implementation coalitions, conception, consent, and task-relative verification—that determine whether a team can achieve and legitimately recognize a conjunctive goal. The authors present the Collective Counterfactual Solvability (CCS) problem, separating geometric feasibility, executable attainment, and validated completion, and provide a sound and complete four-step solvability scheme under exact representation of relay closure.
arXiv:2606. 08021v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language model (LLM) agents are integrated into autonomous cloud operations, distributed systems face a semantic reliability problem: proposer agents can generate production mutations, such as modifying IAM policies, opening firewall security groups, or executing data exports, that are syntactically valid and statically authorized but operationally unsafe.
arXiv:2607. 11751v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As multi-agent, tool-using LLM systems are deployed, a common safety net is a runtime monitor that checks each message, tool call, or step on its own.
arXiv:2607. 24893v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems can be attacked by a payload that no single agent ever holds in full: a poisoned tool hides encrypted fragments in its observations, spreads them across several agents, and an external step reassembles and executes them after the run.