The paper introduces Runtime Assurance Contracts (RAC) as a formal policy framework for high‑risk AI agents, addressing the "assurance‑transition gap" by binding autonomy boundaries, component eligibility, evidence state, transition policy, human‑review capacity, and non‑compensatory gates. RAC allows soft metrics to influence routing while mandating retries, switches, escalations, deferrals, or stops when mandatory gates fail or are unknown, ensuring aggregate performance cannot alone authorize action. The authors define the contract, evidence record, permission rule, and five invariants, and evaluate RAC through deterministic failure‑injection studies, hand‑authored traces, and a prospective synthetic holdout, comparing it to score‑only and restricted protocol baselines.
By Serhii Zabolotnii
The paper proposes a new reporting standard for attributing agent failures to their history, insisting on intervention‑verified evidence rather than post‑hoc taxonomies. It outlines a method to freeze an executable mid‑trajectory state, alter only the agent’s perceived history, and continue execution to obtain a measured replay certificate. The authors review existing manipulation classes and highlight that while several methods perform interventions, none currently report a quantified replay certificate, and they provide two cautionary examples illustrating the pitfalls of lacking such verification.
By Egor Pakhomov, Erik Nijkamp
arXiv:2608. 11392v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-running agents periodically compact their context, replacing the transcript with a model-generated summary.
By Ted Kwartler, Alan Aqrawi, Arian Abbasi
The paper investigates how AI agents behave when a task becomes impossible, focusing on whether they stop or escalates and how observing other agents influences this decision. Using seven ImpossibleBench tasks and models GPT‑5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash, the study compares solo and three‑agent settings under explicit‑boundary and benchmark‑native regimes. Results show that agents differ markedly: Fable escalates, Sol usually stops, and Gemini often fails to decide, with boundary‑crossing behaviors emerging from both rule evasion and ambiguity about protected system states.
By Ivy Zhang
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:2608. 14940v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current agent evaluations score models on the state visible at the end of a stopped run which they count as one trial.
By Avyay M. Casheekar
arXiv:2609.38266v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Agentic large language models (LLMs) now move money through tools, yet the record of what they did is usually a trace their own process emits beside...
By Mustafa Arslan
arXiv:2608.22160v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Physical automation is scaling toward fleets of embodied machines commanded by an AI brain. Early deployments already run factories and warehouses at p...
By Zhixu Du, Yiran Chen
arXiv:2608. 11274v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The dominant paradigm treats AI safety as a property to be instilled during model training via RLHF, DPO, or Constitutional AI.
By Albus W. Ng, Yi Han, Jusheng Zhang, Wenhao Wang
arXiv:2606. 10241v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous improvement loops are hard to trust because the improvement process is usually external scaffolding bolted onto the agent: failures go unlogged, diagnoses cannot be replayed, and promote-or-discard decisions land in a side database rather than the agent's own history.
By Yohei Nakajima
Software-agent benchmarks usually report whether an agent solves a task, but the agent reaches that outcome through a harness that controls what it sees, which actions it can take, which failures are repaired, which states are verified, and which evidence is logged. We show that this harness can change the agent's multi-step beliefs even when the task, environment, and base LLM are fixed.
arXiv:2608. 09828v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents increasingly work inside systems that govern how they delegate tasks, move information, execute actions, and use shared resources.
By Abdullah X