arXiv:2607. 01510v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents that autonomously execute tool calls on a user's behalf raise pressing questions about permission management: what role could users play, and what role should they play?
arXiv:2607. 13718v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI agents gain prevalance, users are increasingly exposed to the risks such systems entail.
arXiv:2604. 14228v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Claude Code is an agentic coding tool that can run shell commands, edit files, and call external services on behalf of the user.
The paper evaluates a task-based permission scoping architecture for AI agents, comparing a fine‑tuned RoBERTa‑large encoder to few‑shot Claude Haiku 4.5 on a 600‑prompt dataset. It shows the new system achieves comparable macro‑F1 (0.881 vs. 0.886) and higher precision (0.897 vs. 0.842), while reducing severity‑weighted residual risk from 1.12 to 0.63. The study also introduces an attack‑surface elimination metric, demonstrating that task‑granular control can close 84.4% of the severity‑weighted surface, far surpassing role‑based ceilings alone.
The paper examines how users delegate tasks to the AI agent OpenClaw by analyzing 73,093 Reddit posts. It identifies 21 human values grouped into six categories—such as Autonomous Operation, Dependable Operation, Affordable Operation, Bounded Reach, Reviewability, and Equitable Access—and finds that values are largely satisfied when users describe the agent’s outputs but often unmet when users discuss supervising the agent. The authors term this pattern "value‑sensitive delegation," emphasizing that supporting human values requires attention to both what an agent does and the conditions users set around its use.
arXiv:2601.12449v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents are autonomous systems that combine LLMs with external tools to solve complex tasks. While such tools extend capability, improper t...
arXiv:2607. 23438v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems increasingly exhibit agentic behavior, discussions of autonomy often conflate what systems are technically capable of doing with what they should be permitted to do in practice.
arXiv:2510. 04465v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM agents require personal information for personalization in order to effectively act on users' behalf, but this raises privacy concerns that can discourage data sharing, limiting both the autonomy levels at which agents can operate and the effectiveness of personalization.
arXiv:2608.29596v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous large language model (LLM) agents increasingly face reliability, context consumption, and execution stability bottlenecks when deployed on c...
arXiv:2608. 09278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: GUI agents have advanced rapidly, producing a growing body of frameworks, benchmarks, and applications.
arXiv:2607. 22611v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The deployment of autonomous AI agents in production infrastructure introduces fundamental security challenges that traditional role-based access control (RBAC) models cannot address.
AI agents increasingly act through external tools: they read private data, construct structured payloads, submit write requests, export records, and coordinate workflows across application boundaries. Existing authorization mechanisms usually ask whether an integration credential, app, or token can call a tool.
arXiv:2609.34790v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM agents operate in persistent collaborative environments involving multiple users, communities, memories, files, and tools. Community boun...