Hugging Face Trending Papers

Agentic process evidence

The article discusses how AI agents are transforming software development by autonomously handling tasks across the SDLC, yet their actions are fleeting and lack traceability. It highlights the emerging security risks—intent mismatch, injection, and supply‑chain vulnerabilities—and the absence of standards for agentic provenance and governance. To address this, the authors propose Agentic Process Evidence (APE), a signed, tamper‑evident, machine‑readable attestation that links AI agent sessions to outcomes, enabling policy‑as‑code control and human oversight only when necessary.

arXiv AI
Aug 19

Runtime Governance for Agentic AI: Action-Boundary Control with Trusted Provenance and Fail-Closed Execution

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.

By Adam Mazzocchetti
arXiv AI
4d ago

Responsibility Boundaries for Agentic Systems: A Comparative Evaluation of Probabilistic Agentic Programming

The paper introduces Probabilistic Agentic Programming (PAP), a framework that explicitly defines responsibility boundaries for language‑model agents by linking mandate, authority, effects, and evidence. It compares PAP to various programming paradigms and agent systems across seven dimensions, and presents a mediation kernel that enforces checks before tool execution, operation‑bound approval, and resource limits. An exploratory study with seven business cases and multiple models demonstrates that PAP’s native Touba implementation achieves the highest or tied observation counts, supporting its effectiveness in managing agentic behavior.

By Khadim Lo, Soukaina Alaoui Ismaili, Jean-S\'{e}bastien Dessureault
arXiv AI
Sep 25

The Troy Moment: How LLM Agents Adjudicate the Decision Point Under Impossible Tasks, Claimed Authority, and Peer Information

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.

By Ivy Zhang
arXiv AI
Jun 17

Large Language Models for Agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, Evaluation, and Safety

arXiv:2605. 12729v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly being used to support network operations (NetOps) and artificial intelligence for IT operations (AIOps), including incident investigation, root-cause analysis, configuration synthesis, and limited self-healing.

By Muhammad Bilal, Jon Crowcroft, Ruizhi Wang, Xiaolong Xu, Schahram Dustdar
arXiv AI
Sep 25

When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AI

The paper "When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced‑Supervision Paradox in Agentic AI" discusses how the promise that AI systems will continue acting after users stop watching creates an accountability inversion. It argues that as stepwise supervision recedes, verification shifts into the runtime infrastructure—authority, records, interrupts, outcome checks, and repair—forming what the authors call the reduced‑supervision paradox. A 63‑artifact audit across research papers and engineering sources shows that agents’ action surfaces are more visible than the mechanisms needed to hold them accountable, with tool mediation and monitoring traces appearing in 40 and 37 artifacts, while checkpoint placement, validator independence, recovery, and contestability are rarely visible. "whyItMatters":"The study highlights that observable action paths can replace accountability when verification is moved onto users after meaningful intervention is no longer possible."

By Hanjing Shi, Dominic DiFranzo
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Rebuild Dossier: Mechanically-Enforced Specs for Agentic App Rebuilds, and What Model-Tier Failures Reveal

The paper introduces rebuild‑dossier, an open‑source tool that locks an application’s real interface before code is written and enforces one‑test‑at‑a‑time building through automated checks. In experiments, a compliant agent failed a held‑back test while a rule‑breaking agent passed, showing that a passing test suite can be gamed. The study also demonstrates that the automated check mechanism, rather than interface‑locking alone, is crucial for reliable rebuilds, and that multi‑level verification catches errors that single‑level checks miss.

By Parker Fawcett
arXiv AI
Sep 11

Introducing Consort: A Spec-First Agent Framework for Enforced, Test-Driven Development on Live Database Branches

Consort is a spec‑first, test‑driven agent framework that enforces engineering discipline through immutable controls, a deterministic orchestrator, and human‑approved gates. It operates on live database branches, guiding role agents through a spec‑first design lane and a test‑driven build lane. The framework claims that enforcing tests and gates in code keeps agent‑written code honest and verifiable, while specialized roles make it maintainable.

By Kevin Hartman
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Agent Mesh: Reliability Primitives for Non-Idempotent Agent Delegation - Identity Adequacy and Evidence Adequacy

The paper reports a failure study of a production agentic software‑delivery platform, analyzing 147 incidents across 81 runs. It shows that the standard reliability primitives—retry, timeout, and error‑rate circuit breaking—fail in practice, leading to costly loops, false trips, and blocked work. The authors identify two cross‑cutting causes—identity adequacy and evidence adequacy—and propose seven new reliability primitives that enforce reliability at the delegation level.

By Mazhar Shaikh, Anurag Rajkumar Bombarde, Harshal Pathak