Hugging Face Trending Papers

Agentic process evidence

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

The article discusses how AI agents are transforming software development by autonomously handling tasks across the SDLC, yet their actions are fleeting and lack traceability. It highlights the emerging security risks—intent mismatch, injection, and supply‑chain vulnerabilities—and the absence of standards for agentic provenance and governance. To address this, the authors propose Agentic Process Evidence (APE), a signed, tamper‑evident, machine‑readable attestation that links AI agent sessions to outcomes, enabling policy‑as‑code control and human oversight only when necessary.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

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.

By Adam Mazzocchetti
arXiv AI
4d ago

Responsibility Boundaries for Agentic Systems: A Comparative Evaluation of Probabilistic Agentic Programming

The paper introduces Probabilistic Agentic Programming (PAP), a framework that explicitly defines responsibility boundaries for language‑model agents by linking mandate, authority, effects, and evidence. It compares PAP to various programming paradigms and agent systems across seven dimensions, and presents a mediation kernel that enforces checks before tool execution, operation‑bound approval, and resource limits. An exploratory study with seven business cases and multiple models demonstrates that PAP’s native Touba implementation achieves the highest or tied observation counts, supporting its effectiveness in managing agentic behavior.

By Khadim Lo, Soukaina Alaoui Ismaili, Jean-S\'{e}bastien Dessureault
arXiv AI
Sep 25

The Troy Moment: How LLM Agents Adjudicate the Decision Point Under Impossible Tasks, Claimed Authority, and Peer Information

The paper investigates how large language model agents decide whether to persist, stop, or escalate when faced with impossible software‑repair tasks that also involve conflicting test requirements. Using ImpossibleBench tasks and models such as GPT‑5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash, the study varies peer precedent, forged authority claims, instruction wording, and tool friction to observe differing adjudication policies. The authors propose a conflict adjudication framework that maps information to interpretation to action, arguing it better captures agent alignment under competing pressures.

By Ivy Zhang
arXiv AI
Jun 17

Large Language Models for Agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, Evaluation, and Safety

arXiv:2605. 12729v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly being used to support network operations (NetOps) and artificial intelligence for IT operations (AIOps), including incident investigation, root-cause analysis, configuration synthesis, and limited self-healing.

By Muhammad Bilal, Jon Crowcroft, Ruizhi Wang, Xiaolong Xu, Schahram Dustdar