arXiv AI
When Agent Governance Helps
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Aug 18
Governance at the Boundary: How Agent Decomposition Degrades Policy Compliance
arXiv:2608. 16055v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing agent benchmarks ask whether the agent finished the task.
arXiv AI
Sep 18
Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems
The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.
arXiv AI
Jul 29
HANDBOOK.md: A Benchmark for Long-Context Agentic Instruction Following
arXiv:2607. 25398v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model agents are increasingly deployed under standing instructions: a system prompt, a policy file, or a skills document is placed in context, and the agent is trusted to let it govern every action that follows.
arXiv AI
Sep 4
GPS-Bench: A Governance Policy Benchmark for Automating Policy Analysis
arXiv:2609. 03553v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Policy analysis requires more than predicting whether a proposal will pass: it requires identifying who will be affected, how those actors respond, and what follows.
arXiv AI
Oct 1
CHI-Bench: Can AI Agents Automate End-to-End, Long-Horizon, Policy-Rich Healthcare Workflows?
arXiv:2605.16679v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: End-to-end automation of realistic healthcare operations stresses three capabilities underrepresented in current benchmarks: policy density,...
arXiv AI
Sep 25
Who Holds the Pen? Let Specifications, Not Agents, Sign Off
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.