arXiv:2608.21159v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Tool-using AI agents turn delegated tasks into provider effects, yet authorization often ends at admission while provider state, delivery, retry, and...
By Yingzhe Tong, Leyu Dai, Songhui Guo
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.
By Jun He, Deying Yu
arXiv:2608. 04289v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon agents increasingly use persistent memory and tools to take actions with external side effects.
By Mayur Akewar, Ravi Ranjan
arXiv:2606. 02965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models gain tool access and are deployed as autonomous agents capable of editing records, executing transactions, and modifying infrastructure, we still evaluate them based on the sole metric of task completion.
By Victor Ojewale, Suresh Venkatasubramanian
arXiv:2606. 02965v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for autonomous agents measure whether agents complete tasks, yet this framing is systematically blind to whether an agent should have proceeded at all.
By Victor Ojewale, Suresh Venkatasubramanian
arXiv:2607. 07097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety evaluations of multi-agent LLM systems often compare a direct prompt with a planner-executor pipeline and report the difference as a single "pipeline effect.
By Lifei Liu, Haoran Yu, Xiaochong Jiang, Su Wang, Pin Qian, Yihang Chen
arXiv:2607. 14890v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous coding agents increasingly execute multi-step software work, but lifecycle states such as reviewed, tested, DONE, and ready-to-merge remain claims unless supported by current evidence.
By Jek Huang, Jeffery Hsia, Jiayi Sun, Freddie Shi, Wei Huang, Ian H. White
arXiv:2607. 10487v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents can commit durable effects from authority evidence that was valid earlier in execution: a DOM snapshot, approval epoch, version witness, branch token, or worker result.
By Igor Santos-Grueiro
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.
By Gaston Besanson
arXiv:2608. 16402v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model-based agentic frameworks primarily optimize capability: whether an agent can reason, retrieve information, call tools, delegate work, and complete a goal.
By Bhaskar Tripathi, Anurag Kumar, Ramendra Kumar, Bhavesh Gadhe
The paper introduces EvidenceNet, a runtime assurance layer designed to verify that coordinated AI agent operations achieve an operator’s intended network-wide outcomes across multiple administrative domains. EvidenceNet collects post-change observations from the required authority scopes, checks their freshness and validity, and uses a verifier agent to assess observation content. Experiments on live routing networks demonstrate that this approach can detect successful outcomes that configuration-action logs alone miss, and it rejects completions when observations are sourced incorrectly, substituted, or stale.
By Tianzhu Zhang, Chih-Kai Huang, Meikang Qiu
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