arXiv:2608. 16055v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing agent benchmarks ask whether the agent finished the task.
arXiv:2608. 11344v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems that decompose goals, coordinate models and tools, and act with little oversight.
The paper proposes a claim‑specific verification audit for modular agents that replaces aggregate task scores with evidence‑based evaluations. Each agent conclusion is recorded with supporting evidence and classified as supported, unsupported, unresolved, or not evaluated, along with the boundary of validity. The audit employs three tools—oracle policies, perfect component replacements, and verifier‑score tests—to trace value changes, locate lost value, and assess verifier effectiveness, demonstrated on a portfolio‑allocation agent in a synthetic market.
arXiv:2606. 12320v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise security was built to govern data boundaries: the protected surface was data at rest and in transit, and the controls -- access control, data-loss prevention, perimeter inspection -- governed crossings of that boundary.
arXiv:2606. 08919v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person.
arXiv:2609.05531v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: No specification says how a governed autotelic AI agent organization, where agents pursue self-generated goals inside guardrails, should be designed...
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:2609.25686v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-horizon assigned work requires an LLM agent to track the state of a task: which steps are done, blocked, cancelled, or open to repetition. Agent...
FinalityBench is an executable benchmark that tests how agents decide on shipping, re‑capturing, refunding, or waiting when a merchant’s payment processor, ledger, ERP, and bank feed receive delayed, duplicated, dropped, or reordered messages, causing contradictory beliefs about an order. The benchmark uses a hidden canonical event log and faulted delivery streams to generate system views, scoring each episode by the merchant’s terminal economic position relative to a privileged reference. It contains 321 tasks, including 45 twin pairs where all four views are identical yet the correct disposition differs, and evaluates nine programmatic policies, revealing that a ship‑on‑first‑sign policy performs best by accuracy but worst by paired loss, while a runtime‑gated irreversible‑action policy achieves 85.4% accuracy without losing money.
The paper argues that large language model agents should not be the sole authority on whether they have satisfied a task. It identifies two gaps—understanding–execution and state–authority—where agents may claim completion without actually meeting the specification. The authors propose SpecHarness, a framework that separates agent proposals from authoritative state by requiring evidence from qualified providers to confirm compliance, and demonstrate its effectiveness on guideline‑following and artifact‑generation tasks.
arXiv:2606. 22528v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Modern LLM agents increasingly rely on context compaction, summarization, or eviction to keep long-running sessions within a token budget.
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.
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.