arXiv AI
agent-risk: Risk Assessment for Changes to AI Agents
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Oct 1
Trust Is Not a Score: Runtime Assurance Contracts for High-Risk AI Agents
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 AI
1d ago
Attributing Agent Failures to Their History Needs an Executed Counterfactual: Toward a Reporting Standard
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 13
AI Guardrail Survival under Single-Cycle Agentic Self-Summarization
arXiv:2608. 11392v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-running agents periodically compact their context, replacing the transcript with a model-generated summary.
arXiv AI
Sep 15
The Troy Moment of AI: Why SomeWill Cheat and SomeWill Follow?
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 19
Runtime Governance for Agentic AI: Action-Boundary Control with Trusted Provenance and Fail-Closed Execution
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
When Is an Agent Evaluation Over? Outcome Finality and Cross-Unit Separation
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.