arXiv:2608. 13046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Organizational decisions are co-created while evidence, constraints, and human priorities continue to evolve.
Organizational decisions are co-created while evidence, constraints, and human priorities continue to evolve. In conventional transcript-based multi-agent systems, humans typically provide an initial problem, agents deliberate internally, and the system returns a final response.
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.
The paper argues that deploying generative AI agents requires more than isolated task success; they must remain useful across repeated interactions, changing conditions, and dependencies on people within shared workflows. The authors introduce two complementary evaluation aspects—operational resilience and considerate participation—to assess how agents recover from blocked work, communicate limits, and adapt to affected people and role boundaries. Using 120 simulated healthcare trajectories across two AI models and twelve stakeholder-derived tasks under varying challenge levels, the study finds that agents shift toward greater human dependence and increased workload as challenge accumulates, while also broadening from task-focused adaptation to task reframing and wider coordination.
The paper introduces Graph‑Agentic Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG), a system that blends structured evidence with adaptive agents capable of planning retrieval, navigating relations, verifying claims, delegating tasks, and employing tools. It highlights how defects in graph construction can propagate through retrieval and control decisions, potentially leading to significant outcomes. To address these risks, the authors propose an assurance‑by‑construction framework with five interface contracts—evidence, retrieval, reasoning, capability & delegation, and outcome—that make provenance, validity, authorization, uncertainty, and recoverability explicit, and outline an evaluation agenda for social‑good applications.
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.
arXiv:2609.21423v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Online agent deployments produce abundant execution traces, while task-specific verification and expert annotation are costly to scale. We study how to...
arXiv:2607. 28802v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing evaluations often reduce agent failures to system-level outcomes, obscuring where the fault originated and which intervention would improve the agent system.
arXiv:2608. 10504v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As coding agents increasingly handle implementation, the central challenge shifts from building individual agents to building an infrastructure that systematically improves them.
The paper introduces Procedural Graphs, a framework that structures procedural knowledge for large language model agents as (procedure, relation, procedure) triplets, analogous to knowledge graphs for factual data. At each decision point, a guidance model uses the local subgraph to bias the agent’s next action, while an LLM refiner self‑evolves the graph by comparing failed and successful trajectories, editing its topology to improve performance. Experiments across various datasets, tasks, and LLMs show that Procedural Graphs consistently outperform memory‑based baselines, and the self‑evolution mechanism further enhances results without manual engineering.
arXiv:2606. 09751v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Foundation models are moving from response generation into operational roles.
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.
The paper introduces the Alignment Flywheel, a governance‑centric hybrid multi‑agent system (MAS) that separates decision generation from safety governance. It defines a Proposer that generates candidate trajectories, a Safety Oracle stack that evaluates safety, and an Enforcement layer that applies risk policies at runtime. A governance MAS oversees monitoring, red‑teaming, verification, and versioned release management, enabling patch‑local fixes to safety failures without retraining the Proposer. The architecture is implementation‑agnostic and is demonstrated in two scenarios: a learned spatial Oracle and a clinical GenAI proxy. The authors provide open‑source code at https://github.com/decide-ugent/Alignment-Flywheel.