arXiv AI By Nguyen Viet Tuan Kiet, Huynh Thi Thanh Binh

Diagnose, Recover, Certify: Task Readiness under Hidden Dynamics Changes

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces a framework for diagnosing and recovering from hidden dynamics changes in deployed control policies, focusing on the problem of task readiness under dormant dynamics drift. It proposes an intervention-based Bayesian method called Evidence‑Gated Matched‑Pulse Transport that localizes faults and estimates actuator effectiveness, enabling agents to certify readiness for future tasks with limited, task‑agnostic interactions. The approach is evaluated on diverse benchmarks, measuring readiness coverage, selective risk, interaction cost, and return, and identifies regimes where transported evidence is decisive.

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 arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 25

Certified Task-Conditioned Active Observability

The paper introduces the concept of task‑conditioned active observability, defining the minimal interaction cost needed for an autonomous agent to identify task‑relevant states while guaranteeing safe abstention. It formalizes this complexity, proving that task‑predictive equivalence yields a unique minimal sufficient quotient that preserves complexity and eliminates unnecessary distinctions. The authors present theoretical characterizations for deterministic and noisy regimes, and demonstrate a certified observer that reduces sensor usage and model steps while maintaining zero false acceptances in extensive high‑dimensional trials.

By Linzhe Zhang, Changming Xu
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 21

Complex Problem Solving in Large Language Models: A Statistical Control Survey and Diagnostic Framework

arXiv:2609.20973v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Complex problem solving (CPS) with large language models (LLMs) is often framed as a matter of stronger reasoning or longer generation. Yet early-ste...

By Jiazhang Cai, Tao Wang, Ruidong Zhang, Siyuan Li, Terry Ma, Luyang Fang, Haoran Lu, Huimin Cheng, Yingchuan Zhang, Shushan Wu, Rui Xie, Lin Tang, Chao Huang, Rongjie Liu, Ziyu Liu, Meizhi Yu, Yongkai Chen, Yifan Zhou, Zeliang Sun, Chang Liu, Zhen Xiang, Wei Xiao, Zixin Rao, Xinyi Liu, Yutong Hu, Mengrui Zhang, Jing Zhang, Weidi Luo, Jincheng Yu, Zhengliang Liu, Weihang You, Hanqi Jiang, Yi Pan, Junhao Chen, Xinliang Li, Tianming Liu, Wenxuan Zhong, Ping Ma
arXiv AI
Sep 30

Distinguish or Homogenize: Last-Chance Policy Identification and Risk-Budgeted Recovery under Irreversible Resource Depletion

The paper introduces the Distinguish-or-Homogenize principle, where an agent can either spend resources to differentiate between latent fault models or alter the system state so that the remaining models share a common acceptable policy, eliminating further diagnosis. This leads to the Last-Chance Policy Identification (LCPI) framework, which evaluates correctness at the reached state rather than the initial one, and defines the Last Identifiable Margin (LIM) as the boundary between distinguishing and homogenizing. For deterministic diagnostic graphs, an Exact-LIM recursion is provided, while for noisy finite-horizon recovery the authors propose Risk-Budgeted Compatibility Planning (RBCP), which searches a compatibility-aware frontier under a hard worst-case failure constraint, demonstrating improved risk-feasible recovery in microservice and MiniGrid scenarios.

By Yibo Guo, Xiaodan Wang
arXiv AI
Oct 21

Runtime Control for AI Agents: Closing the Evaluation--Execution Gap in Operational Workflows

The paper introduces a runtime assurance layer for language‑model agents operating in operational workflows, addressing the evaluation–execution gap where approvals may become invalid after changes in facts, evidence, policy, or authority. The proposed state‑bound configuration separates probabilistic measurement from deterministic adjudication, binds execution allowances to the basis of an approval, invalidates them upon logged changes, and rechecks admissibility at dispatch. In a scripted 42‑case replay, the approach identified 15 later‑invalidated approvals that a non‑re‑evaluating comparator missed, holding 14 affected actions before dispatch and compensating one landed effect.

By Jayesh Bhadane, Ramachandra Yerramsetti, Rajesh Gupta, Sumit Kumar