Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchSiguranță AI

analiza aiqbench

This research identifies critical safety boundaries for foundation-model agents, demonstrating that simplifying runtime interfaces by ignoring semantic proposals can destroy certifiability even when coverage is preserved. The study proves that maintaining the correlation between model proposals and historical context is mathematically necessary to ensure robust safe interventions in deployed systems.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

AI Harness: Certification under Proposal-Conditioned Information for Foundation-Model Agents

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2609.32184v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Foundation-model agents are often modeled as policies over an observed state. In deployed systems, however, a runtime may intervene only after the model has emitted a semantic proposal, making the proposal both an action candidate and a decision-time observation generated by a history-conditioned process. We show that collapsing this structure into a state-only proposal envelope can preserve proposal coverage while destroying certifiability. In a finite robust interface, the viability kernel of the collapsed model is contained in the physical projection of the history-augmented kernel, and the collapse is lossless exactly when every proposal-conditioned collapsed fiber retains a common robust-safe intervention. This gap can be maximal even with constant-size proposal and history alphabets. The same common-action condition yields a dual result: observing the current proposal can restore robust feasibility when it separates latent modes requiring incompatible interventions. We extend these one-step results over time using exact finite beliefs and standard safety and reachability fixed points, separating indefinite operational viability from finite worst-case verified progress. Controlled model-in-the-loop tests reproduce the predicted obstructions when telemetry or effect verification is removed or intervention authority is restricted. Thus, our contribution is not a new fixed-point calculus, but a characterization of when proposal--history correlation at the model--tool boundary is necessary for certification.

Abstract:Foundation-model agents are often modeled as policies over an observed state. In deployed systems, however, a runtime may intervene only after the model has emitted a semantic proposal, making the proposal both an action candidate and a decision-time observation generated by a history-conditioned process. We show that collapsing this structure into a state-only proposal envelope can preserve proposal coverage while destroying certifiability. In a finite robust interface, the viability kernel of the collapsed model is contained in the physical projection of the history-augmented kernel, and the collapse is lossless exactly when every proposal-conditioned collapsed fiber retains a common robust-safe intervention. This gap can be maximal even with constant-size proposal and history alphabets. The same common-action condition yields a dual result: observing the current proposal can restore robust feasibility when it separates latent modes requiring incompatible interventions. We extend these one-step results over time using exact finite beliefs and standard safety and reachability fixed points, separating indefinite operational viability from finite worst-case verified progress. Controlled model-in-the-loop tests reproduce the predicted obstructions when telemetry or effect verification is removed or intervention authority is restricted. Thus, our contribution is not a new fixed-point calculus, but a characterization of when proposal--history correlation at the model--tool boundary is necessary for certification.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Systems and Control (eess.SY)

arXiv:2609.32184 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.32184v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32184 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 304 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe