analiza aiqbench
This research proposes an architectural framework for agentic AI that formally mandates suspension or surrender of control when epistemic uncertainty rises, moving beyond simple alignment fixes to structural governance. By utilizing a timed Petri net formulation with distinct operational states, the study demonstrates how systems can be designed to prevent unbounded autonomy and ensure safety in high-stakes environments like robotics and healthcare.
Intelligence as Managed Autonomy: Failure, Escalation, and Governance for Agentic AI Systems
arXiv:2605.27628v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As autonomous and agentic AI systems scale in robotic and human-machine environments, managing hallucination and persistent but unjustified action remains an open challenge. Rather than attributing these failures solely to model or alignment limitations, this paper explores the architectural vulnerability of unbounded autonomy - the presumption that an agent should continue operating regardless of rising uncertainty. It introduces a theory of managed autonomy that defines intelligent behavior through the formal capacity to detect epistemic drift, suspend reasoning, attempt recovery, and ultimately surrender control when reliability diminishes. We instantiate this theory via the SMARt (Self-Managing Multi-tier Autonomous Reasoning with Regulated/Revoked transitions) model, a four-layer framework featuring Stable, Meta-cognitive, Assisted, and Regulated states. By developing a timed, guarded Petri net formulation, we establish theoretically bounded properties for the system, demonstrating how architecture can formally mandate escalation, constrain invalid outputs, and ensure governance reachability under specified conditions. We further analyze how incorporating domain-specific trigger sets across varied operational settings (e.g., healthcare, robotics, etc.) can systematically preserve safety, assuming completeness and soundness criteria are met. Because these triggers are designed to be adaptive, the SMARt model accommodates the safe, controlled expansion of an agent's operational scope over time. We conclude that formalizing failure management within the autonomy lifecycle is a crucial step toward realizing reliable and governed artificial intelligence.
Abstract:As autonomous and agentic AI systems scale in robotic and human-machine environments, managing hallucination and persistent but unjustified action remains an open challenge. Rather than attributing these failures solely to model or alignment limitations, this paper explores the architectural vulnerability of unbounded autonomy - the presumption that an agent should continue operating regardless of rising uncertainty. It introduces a theory of managed autonomy that defines intelligent behavior through the formal capacity to detect epistemic drift, suspend reasoning, attempt recovery, and ultimately surrender control when reliability diminishes. We instantiate this theory via the SMARt (Self-Managing Multi-tier Autonomous Reasoning with Regulated/Revoked transitions) model, a four-layer framework featuring Stable, Meta-cognitive, Assisted, and Regulated states. By developing a timed, guarded Petri net formulation, we establish theoretically bounded properties for the system, demonstrating how architecture can formally mandate escalation, constrain invalid outputs, and ensure governance reachability under specified conditions. We further analyze how incorporating domain-specific trigger sets across varied operational settings (e.g., healthcare, robotics, etc.) can systematically preserve safety, assuming completeness and soundness criteria are met. Because these triggers are designed to be adaptive, the SMARt model accommodates the safe, controlled expansion of an agent's operational scope over time. We conclude that formalizing failure management within the autonomy lifecycle is a crucial step toward realizing reliable and governed artificial intelligence.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Systems and Control (eess.SY)
arXiv:2605.27628 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.27628v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.27628 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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 · 321 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Hegseth AutoWarCom: who builds it, what the money buys, and why its hardest problem after Minab is the record, not the model
livetradingnews.com · 2 oct. 2026

Presentation: Platform Teams Enabling AI - MCP/Multi-Agentic Tools across Linkedin
InfoQ · 5 iun. 2026
Assessing Information Ecosystems : How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid Threats
carnegieendowment.org · 5 aug. 2026
The AI control gap: Who gets to say ‘It’s safe’?
SiliconANGLE · 10 oct. 2026