arXiv:2606. 26298v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous AI agents may begin to perform consequential, irreversible actions such as clinical prescribing and production software deployment.
arXiv:2606. 30970v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous AI agents increasingly perform consequential actions on behalf of human principals, including financial transactions, external communications, and enterprise workflows.
arXiv:2606. 30970v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autonomous AI agents increasingly perform consequential actions on behalf of human principals, including financial transactions, external communications, and enterprise workflows.
arXiv:2606. 23768v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose cryptographic certificates of validity for agentic AI systems.
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.
arXiv:2608. 15424v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of large language models has enabled the development of clinical multi-agent systems (MAS) capable of integrating multimodal patient data and supporting increasingly complex clinical decision-making.
arXiv:2609.06543v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise AI is evolving into an Enterprise Operating System where autonomous AI agents can plan, reason, use memory, invoke tools, execute workflows,...
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
The paper discusses how autonomous AI systems are moving from advisory to agentic roles in medication prescribing, citing recent U.S. legislation and a Utah pilot program. It argues that three architectural features—calibrated per‑prediction confidence, clear differentiation between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, and inferential transparency—are essential for safe autonomous prescribing. A survey of 136 U.S. clinicians shows they require a confidence‑based escalation mechanism, prefer different handling of uncertainty types, and will only accept liability when transparency allows informed decision‑making.
arXiv:2607. 17225v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI systems do not just predict or recommend; they plan, maintain state, and act in external environments with varying degrees of autonomy.
arXiv:2607. 21325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous AI agents increasingly execute actions, invoke tools, and operate on protected resources with limited human oversight.
arXiv:2607. 21325v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Autonomous AI agents increasingly execute actions, invoke tools, and operate on protected resources with limited human oversight.
arXiv:2608. 13958v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How do we govern AI systems whose reasoning we cannot fully inspect?