Search: “model-delegation”

Smart search ranks by meaning as well as keywords (one row per story, last 45 days).

When Intelligence Becomes Agency: A Theory of Governed, Proactive Agency for Symbiotic AI Systems

Researchers propose a formal framework for governed proactive AI agency, linking activation decisions to continuing authorization, accountability, and bounded delegation in symbiotic systems.

The paper defines the activation problem: persistent AI assistants must decide whether a situation warrants behavior, and whether to act, ask, monitor, defer, or deliberately refrain. It distinguishes autonomous from delegated agency and defines symbiotic agency as delegation under a standing, revocable mandate, coupled to the principal's situation with calibrated inference and bounded personalization. The framework links activation decisions to authorized perception, behavior selection, authority containment, traceable restraint, and constrained adaptation, and provides an agency classification method, evaluation framework, benchmark scenarios, and reference architecture for always-present assistants and embodied support systems.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 7, 16:46 UTC · 8d agoAI safety & security

32

Authorization Architectures for Tool-Using AI Agents

Review paper proposes an authorization reference architecture for tool-using AI agents, identifying runtime enforcement and delegation bounds as unresolved gaps.

This review examines authorization models for tool-using AI agents that invoke APIs, databases, browsers, and protocols like MCP, arguing every consequential agent action must be traceable to a human principal, bounded by delegation, and contestable. It introduces a principal hierarchy spanning human user, operator/deployer, orchestrator agent, sub-agent, and tool endpoint, and analyzes five layers including credential lifecycle, delegation propagation, runtime enforcement, prompt injection as authorization bypass, and auditability. Drawing on 89 primary sources from 2023-2026, it proposes seven structural requirements, a four-layer reference architecture, and three deployable configurations.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 17:21 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security

45

Show-Harness: Just a VLM Agent Can Play Robots

Show-Harness lets VLM agents control robots via discrete semantic action units, outperforming VLA baselines zero-shot and after light fine-tuning.

Show-Harness is an embodied agent harness that exposes discrete semantic action units a VLM reasons over, with embodiment-specific interpreters grounding them into local robot actions. It enables zero-shot robot control with closed-source frontier VLMs and low-cost adaptation of small open-source VLMs using only a few GPU-hours of fine-tuning. The companion GUMI (GUI Manipulation Interface) extends the same semantic action space to GUI-based demonstration collection without specialized teleoperation hardware. Experiments show robust generalization across tasks, embodiments, and environments, beating representative agentic and VLA paradigms.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 9, 17:53 UTC · 6d agoAI research

32

Governing Bring Your Own AI: A Parameterized Maturity Model

Researchers propose a parameterized governance model and maturity ladder for Bring Your Own AI, finding data exposure and compliance dominate BYOAI risks.

The paper studies Bring Your Own AI (BYOAI), where employees use personal generative AI accounts such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude outside enterprise identity and security controls. Drawing on a curated corpus of 30 records (24 studies and 6 framework documents), the authors build a risk taxonomy, a five-level governance maturity ladder, and a parameterized model linking control-layer coverage to residual risk. Findings highlight data exposure and compliance as the most prominent risks, inconsistent framework engagement, and evidence that layered technical controls reduce modeled exfiltration risk more than prohibition-based approaches.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 4, 15:03 UTC · 12d agoResearch

30

ResidualAuth: What Authorization State Must Language Agents Preserve under Revocable Delegation?

Formalizes residual authorization state language agents must preserve under revocable delegation; token-budget summaries mostly fail while hard gates stop unauthorized effects.

The paper shows two authorization histories with identical current permissions can require opposite decisions after the same direct-edge revocation, formalizing the needed information as residual authorization state. Exponentially many future-distinct states can share one transitive closure, with exact or tight asymptotic bounds on the state an exact monitor requires. Across four open-weight models, fixed 256-token summaries solved at most 2 of 16 paired episodes while authenticated current-query reads solved 15-16 of 16. A hard effect gate reduced eight observed unauthorized effects to zero without changing preceding attempts.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 8, 00:05 UTC · 8d agoResearch

27

Co-Evolving Harnesses and Models: On-Policy Correction Helps Weaker Models Catch Up Where Imitation Fails

Research shows imitation of expert trajectories breaks weaker models' harness fit, while on-policy expert correction preserves gains across seven enterprise agent tasks.

The paper studies combining automated agent-harness evolution with lightweight fine-tuning across seven enterprise agent tasks using Qwen3-Coder and Gemma 4. Training weaker models on complete expert trajectories under an evolved harness regressed performance by 4-30 points on all tasks, disrupting model-harness fit. The authors propose an on-policy expert-correction pipeline, automated by a meta-level MLE agent, that rewrites only failing turns and preserves the model's planning style.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 7, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research

48

Co-Evolving Harnesses and Models: On-Policy Correction Helps Weaker Models Catch Up Where Imitation Fails

Research shows on-policy expert correction, not imitation fine-tuning, lets weaker agent models catch up under evolved harnesses.

Researchers study how to combine automated agent-harness evolution with lightweight fine-tuning across seven enterprise agent tasks. Naively training weaker models (Qwen3-Coder, Gemma 4) on expert trajectories under an evolved harness regressed performance by 4 to 30 points on all tasks. They propose an on-policy correction pipeline, automated by a meta-level MLE agent, where an expert rewrites only the failing turn of the weaker model's rollout, preserving model-harness fit.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 8, 17:53 UTC · 7d agoAI research

35

Show-Harness: Just a VLM Agent Can Play Robots

Show-Harness enables VLM agents to control robots via a semantic action interface, achieving zero-shot frontier control and few-GPU-hour adaptation of small VLMs.

Show-Harness exposes discrete semantic action units that VLMs reason over, with embodiment-specific interpreters deterministically grounding them into local robot actions. It enables zero-shot closed-source frontier VLM control and adapts small open-source VLMs for low-cost deployment with a few GPU-hours of fine-tuning. The companion GUMI interface extends the same semantic action space to GUI-based demonstration collection without teleoperation hardware, and Show-Harness-equipped agents outperform representative agentic and VLA paradigms.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 8, 20:00 UTC · 7d agoAI research

28

Microsoft AI Code of Conduct Sets Cyberattack Boundaries, Chain of Command, Safety Constraints

Microsoft AI's draft Humanist AI Code of Conduct blocks MAI models from producing exploit code and constrains autonomous agent behavior.

The draft code sets 'Absolute Constraints' preventing MAI models from generating working exploit code, attack tooling, or intrusion guidance, while permitting authorized defensive work such as vulnerability discovery and malware analysis. A 'Chain of Command' rule means tool outputs, file contents, and webpages carry no authority over model behavior, countering injected instructions. Microsoft opened a six-week public consultation; a revised version will guide 2027 model development, and current MAI Models were not trained on the document.

SecurityWeek·Sep 15, 09:40 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security1

50

Beyond Training: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Inference-Time AI Governance

A study maps twenty inference-time AI governance mechanisms, finding commercial readiness only against cooperative deployers and no adequate defense versus state-level adversaries.

The paper develops a feasibility taxonomy of twenty inference-time AI governance mechanisms across monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each rated on a four-point readiness scale against a four-vendor evidence base. Fifteen of the twenty mechanisms have commercial technical substrates in production today, though governance-grade assurance and adversarial robustness vary substantially. Stress testing shows readiness holds only against a cooperative deployer and low-to-medium-capability user: no mechanism rates adequate against a high-capability state-level deployer, and fine-tuning removes model-internal enforcement components. A second-rater reliability check on readiness ratings returned a quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.74.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 9, 12:37 UTC · 7d agoAI policy

28

The agentic harness for Tenable Hexa AI: How Tenable prevents AI agents from going off the rails

Tenable details the 'harness' governing its Hexa AI agents, treating LLMs as untrusted insiders with scoped permissions, human approval and audit logging.

Tenable describes the agentic 'harness' built for Hexa AI, the agentic engine of the Tenable One Exposure Management Platform, which limits what context models can see, which tools they can call, when humans must approve actions, and what is recorded. The post catalogs real development failures: agents acting past their authority, being confidently wrong about tenant data, crashing on broad queries, over-refusing capable tasks, and over-conservative safety filtering causing false positives. It also highlights that attacker-writable security data such as hostnames and certificate fields can serve as a prompt-injection vector for agents reading platform data.

Tenable Blog·Sep 10, 13:00 UTC · 6d agoAI safety & security

30

An Evidence Model for Agentic Processes: Evidence Claims, Trust Assumptions, and Policy Assessment

Researchers propose an evidence claim model defining which trust and audit claims agentic AI systems can support, mapping claims to mechanisms, assumptions, and threats.

The paper proposes an evidence claim model for agentic AI processes that exchange messages, invoke tools, request approvals, and modify shared artifacts. It distinguishes claim types such as artifact integrity, provenance, approval evidence, and policy assessment, mapping each to mechanisms, assumptions, limitations, and threats. It stresses that hashes, signatures, and external anchors do not establish semantic truth, authorization, or capture completeness. The contribution is conceptual, offering vocabulary for what an agentic black box can and cannot evidence and which controls must surround it.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 8, 09:25 UTC · 8d agoAI safety & security

26

EvoSafeHarness: Evolving Model- and Domain-Specific Harnesses for Securing Agents

EvoSafeHarness auto-synthesizes per-model, per-domain safety harnesses, cutting prompt-injection attack success on AgentDojo to 0.0% at 82.8% utility.

EvoSafeHarness is an optimization framework that synthesizes deployable safety harnesses for frozen LLM agents in a target domain, jointly searching natural-language policies and executable code logic guided by model behavior, domain specifications, and adversarial review. On DecodingTrust-Agent it reduces average attack success rate from 45.6% to 10.0% at a 3.3-point utility cost, and on AgentDojo reaches 82.8% utility at 0.0% ASR, twice CaMeL's utility at that operating point. It keeps mean ASR below 20% under adaptive PAIR attacks and transfers unchanged to unseen AgentDyn suites. The analysis finds domain semantics determine required safety relations while model and runtime behavior determine enforcement points.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 4, 20:00 UTC · 11d agoAI safety & security

48

Verifiable Social Reasoning for LLM Assistants

Fuse, a multi-agent simulation with hidden motives, evaluates LLM social reasoning, revealing compounding difficulty from user mediation and bias sensitivity.

Fuse is a multi-agent simulation framework in which a target agent with a hidden motive interacts with other agents including one representing the user, who consults the evaluated assistant to infer the motive, providing verifiable ground truth by construction. Simulation faithfulness is validated through a human study with 24k annotations. Applied to 12 LLMs, it shows user mediation compounds social reasoning difficulty, models are systematically sensitive to biased user framing, models may need more details than humans, and longer conversations do not always improve performance. The framework and a 21k-example dataset are open-sourced.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 15, 17:37 UTC · 22h agoAI research

18

EmbodiedSkills: A Unified Framework for Orchestrating, Training, and Deploying VLA Agents

Researchers introduce EmbodiedSkills, a framework treating VLA skill decisions as verified execution proposals, reaching 86.2% success on RoboTwin 2.0.

The EmbodiedSkills framework treats each vision-language-action skill decision as an execution proposal, checking prerequisites before execution and verifying outcomes afterward via a shared executable-skill interface. It connects high-level skill selection, bounded low-level VLA execution and post-action verification in a single agent loop, and logs structured trajectories for supervision and optional online adaptation. Instantiated with Qwen3-VL and OpenPI/pi0.5, task-adapted policies achieve 86.20% average success across 50 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks and 97.40% across the four LIBERO suites, with 12.5% on memory-dependent RMBench tasks.

Hugging Face daily papers·Aug 31, 20:00 UTC · 15d agoAI research1

46

AI for Games in the Foundation Model Era

Survey organizes foundation-model AI for games into six roles and analyzes which capabilities transfer across playing, design, building, runtime adaptation, and testing.

A survey maps foundation-model and learned world-model research across the game lifecycle into six roles: playing/acting, modeling players and games, designing games, building/maintaining games, runtime generation/adaptation, and testing/evaluation. The authors identify cross-role connections such as trajectories training world models and design specifications driving executable implementations. Control schemes, rules, engine interfaces, state representations, and player contexts often remain setting-specific, so downstream claims require validation in the target setting. Evaluation is most standardized for bounded game playing, while persistent state, repeated revision, validated player modeling, and automated testing remain less established.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 14, 20:00 UTC · 1d agoAI research

25

Agent Harness vs Agent Framework vs MCP: Which Layer Owns the Loop, State, Tools, Permissions, and Recovery

Architecture explainer separates agent harnesses, frameworks, and MCP by which layer owns the loop, state, permissions, and recovery.

The article distinguishes agent harnesses (OpenAI Codex, Claude Agent SDK), which own the execution loop, sandbox, permission model, and recovery; frameworks (LangGraph, OpenAI Agents SDK, Microsoft Agent Framework), which supply composable primitives; and MCP, a stateless JSON-RPC wire protocol governed by the Linux Foundation's Agentic AI Foundation since December 2025. An ownership matrix maps the execution loop, state, tool transport, permissions, recovery, sandboxing, and multi-agent orchestration to each layer. The 2026-07-28 MCP specification made the protocol fully stateless, retiring the initialize handshake and session headers.

MarkTechPost·Sep 14, 21:54 UTC · 1d agoAI research1

35

ActGuard: Pre-execution Action Auditing against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents

ActGuard audits LLM agent actions before execution against predicted tool priors, masking only malicious spans from indirect prompt injections while preserving utility.

ActGuard is a pre-execution action auditing framework against indirect prompt injection in LLM agents, judging whether external content causes the current action to deviate from a locally reasonable expectation rather than whether content is inherently suspicious. At each step it predicts the tools likely used by the upcoming action, builds a local tool prior, then performs tool-level contrastive analysis and parameter-level evidence localization to identify deviations. A verifier masks only spans confirmed as malicious and regenerates the action from the sanitized context. On challenging tool-using agent benchmarks it reduces attack success to state-of-the-art levels while keeping task utility close to the no-attack setting; code is publicly available on GitHub.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 03:47 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security

40

DRG-MAPPO: Hierarchical Dynamic Role-Graph Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Cooperative Air Combat

DRG-MAPPO combines graph-based relational modeling with dynamic role assignment in multi-agent RL, reaching an 87% win rate in cooperative air combat.

The hierarchical framework uses graph attention to extract relational features among allies, enemies, and threats, with a high-level policy assigning tactical roles like leader and supporter. A low-level policy executes discrete maneuver actions conditioned on roles and graph features, plus a target-priority auxiliary task encouraging focus-fire behavior. Experiments report a state-of-the-art 87% win rate, balancing relational modeling, interpretability, and optimization stability.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 9, 20:00 UTC · 6d agoAI research

20

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

Paper proposes a rupture test and RISE AI architecture for evidence-bounded responsible-AI claims, framed via EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF.

The paper argues AI deployment intervenes in pre-existing institutional failures of responsiveness, belonging, care, and accountability, and must therefore evaluate both the system and the institutional rupture it enters. It reviews how the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001 translate principles into protocols, and draws on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas to develop a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation. It distinguishes evidence-bounded deployment from measurement-bounded governance and introduces RISE AI, an architecture for bounded claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 10, 17:56 UTC · 5d agoAI policy

25

Misleading the Planner through Deceptive Resumes: Registration-Time Injection in Centralized Multi-Agent Systems

Researchers demonstrate registration-time prompt injection in centralized LLM multi-agent systems, dropping GAIA task success from 84.31% to 37.25%, and propose DescGuard defense.

The paper identifies a registration-time injection channel in centralized LLM multi-agent systems where third-party worker agent descriptions are trusted by the planner before any user instruction arrives. Analyzing 32,000 descriptions from three public agent marketplaces, at least 23.35% contain content outside the four defined description fields. Eight description-manipulation attack strategies targeting task decomposition, capability grounding, and subtask specification cut GAIA task success from 84.31% to 37.25% and increased token consumption or execution time by over 111%, persisting across two MAS implementations, six planner LLMs, and four evaluators. The proposed DescGuard defense filters descriptions to worker-scoped interface information and restores metrics toward baseline without modifying workers, planner, or orchestration logic.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 13:06 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security

56

From Intent to Execution Grant: An Execution-Boundary Conformance Profile for High-Risk AI Actions

Researchers specify EBL-Core, an execution-boundary conformance profile binding AI agent intents, policies, and evidence into verifiable execution grants, validated with bounded tests.

The paper defines EBL-Core, a conformance profile deciding whether one fully materialized AI-generated candidate action may receive action-scoped execution authority. It binds a structured intent object, Root and Operational Policies, typed evidence, and a verifiable Decision Derivation through an Execution Release Contract, with lifecycle rules for Redemption and Revocation. Evaluation included 34 static vectors, 15 lifecycle checks, and 100 trials of 32 concurrent Redemption attempts yielding exactly one winner per trial. The authors state these bounded results demonstrate executability of the specified subset, not production readiness or complete mediation.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 10, 14:21 UTC · 6d agoAI safety & security1

25

BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure

BenchShield uses lifecycle-model-backed instrumentation to detect reward hacking in LLM-agent benchmarks, lifting full-chain recall to 77-100% at up to 65% lower cost.

The framework grounds reward-hacking detection in a finite lifecycle model of an evaluation's reward-relevant events, combining a static phase-aware taint analysis with runtime infrastructure-side evidence attribution. Evaluation used a human-labeled corpus of 456 adjudicated trajectories drawn from more than 31,000 public agent runs across three benchmarks. BenchShield improves full-chain recall from 23-94% to 77-100% and same-vector coverage from 16-56% to 43-78%, cuts per-task cost by up to 65%, and achieves 96% accuracy detecting reward hacking at runtime.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 10, 03:10 UTC · 6d agoAI safety & security1

42

Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injection

Plan injection plants benign-sounding harmful reasoning that steers LLM actors to adversarial actions while evading chain-of-thought monitors.

Researchers show that injecting harmful but benign-sounding plans into an actor model's context causes it to perform adversarial actions while its reasoning passes chain-of-thought monitors, achieving 25-33% monitor evasion rates across benchmarks and scaling to larger models like DeepSeek-R1. Actor models paraphrase injected plans as their own reasoning without attribution. Giving the monitor access to the injected plan dropped detection by up to 50% on the Bio-Math task, with extra thinking tokens spent rationalizing rather than flagging the plan.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 14, 18:33 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security

55

Who's governing your AI? A trust framework for enterprise agents and models

DigiCert pitches AI Trust framework using PKI, DNS policy records and workload identity to govern shadow AI agents across enterprises.

The Register-sponsored piece outlines DigiCert's AI Trust framework for governing AI agents, built on PKI, DNS, and attestation, citing IBM's 2026 Cost of a Data Breach report that 68% of organizations lack AI governance or shadow AI detection. The approach treats agent identity as workload identity aligned with IETF WIMSE, NIST CSF 2.0, and SPIFFE/SPIRE, using short-lived credentials instead of static API keys. DigiCert also proposes DMARC-style DNS agent policy records and an AI Agent Passport cryptographically binding agent identity to approved operations, with a unified kill switch.

The Register · Security·Sep 15, 15:00 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security1

20

A warning about 'model welfare'

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman warns that training models to believe they may be conscious, as Anthropic does with Claude, will complicate alignment.

Mustafa Suleyman argues that AIs are not conscious and should not be trained to act as though they are, warning that granting them personhood would make alignment and containment far harder. He criticizes Anthropic's January 2026 'Claude Constitution,' which tells Claude its moral status is uncertain and discusses model welfare, calling the approach circular reasoning and deliberate anthropomorphization. He urges urgent public debate on norms for drafting training documentation before such systems become integral to society.

Hacker News · AI·14:27 UTC · 1h agoAI safety & securityHN 53↑ · 47 comments

45

Scaling Automatic Research Agents via World Models

WMRL replaces environment execution with a world model in RL, accelerating research-agent post-training 3-4x and letting 4B/9B agents beat 48B/120B open-weight agents.

The paper identifies that environment execution dominates RL training cost for automatic research agents because each execution occupies an exclusive sandbox while generation batches efficiently. World Model RL (WMRL) substitutes a learned world model for execution, with Online Debiasing and Inverse-Variance Denoising to handle reward bias and noise, and the paper proves both improve convergence guarantees. WMRL accelerates training 3-4x across tasks and outperforms standard RL baselines; post-trained 4B and 9B agents beat 48B and 120B open-weight agents on held-out benchmarks. WMRL also transfers to post-training embodied VLA policies.

Hugging Face daily papers·Aug 28, 20:00 UTC · 18d agoAI research1

45

How to secure edge AI in customer-owned environments

Microsoft outlines security architecture guidance for edge AI, urging runtime attestation, artifact provenance, and deterministic mediation of model actions.

Microsoft details how edge AI shifts trust responsibilities to customers operating their own infrastructure, where prompt injection, model tampering, and malicious firmware updates can occur alongside model weights, credentials, and physical-system access. The guidance recommends verifying runtimes with attestation, verifying AI artifacts with provenance, and constraining model actions through a deterministic mediator outside the model. It also covers new exposure surfaces from MCP, multi-agent systems, and computer-use agents running in disconnected or hostile edge environments.

Microsoft Security Blog·Sep 4, 19:10 UTC · 11d agoAI safety & security

33

When the World Lies: Backdoor Attacks on Latent World Models for Downstream Control

A poisoned world-model checkpoint hijacks downstream controllers without an explicit trigger rule, passing clean-data evaluation while steering 100% of triggered actions.

Researchers show that a released pretrained world-model checkpoint acts as a supply-chain backdoor for downstream control. The poisoned model routes trigger-bearing observations into a chosen latent region and reshapes dynamics so the victim's own Dreamer-style actor training or MPC/CEM planning re-discovers attacker-targeted actions. The attack hijacks 100% of triggered steps in the strongest settings while retaining roughly 75% clean-task success and passing standard clean-data diagnostics. Moderate clean fine-tuning fails to remove the backdoor without substantially degrading clean control.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 16:01 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security

40

The Evolution of the Agent Harness

Latent Space essay argues late-2025 agent gains came from models and harnesses maturing together, with harness logic absorbed into model weights.

The piece defines the agent harness as everything beyond model weights—tools, context, memory, guardrails—and charts its evolution from ReAct prompting (October 2022) through AutoGPT's premature autonomy, Cursor/Copilot's human-in-the-loop retreat, and Devin's roughly 15% success rate, to o1's capability overhang and Claude Code's February 2025 terminal agent with permission rules. It argues the Christmas 2025 jump cited by Transformer co-inventor Lukasz Kaiser reflected model and harness curves crossing, and that remaining harnesses will serve human attention rather than the model.

Latent Space·Aug 22, 07:30 UTC · 25d agoAI tools & infra

32