analiza aiqbench
This research addresses the critical safety gap in retiring AI agent skills, demonstrating that pruning instructions based solely on benchmark performance can leave dormant hazards untested in physical environments. The authors propose a rigorous two-gate evaluation framework using matched authority counterfactuals to ensure that reducing skill complexity does not inadvertently trigger unauthorized protected effects. Ultimately, the study proves that maintaining authorized utility while eliminating risks requires explicit auditing of the authority contracts governing real-world actions rather than relying on standard task certifications.
Safe Skill Retirement for Physical Agents
arXiv:2609.29543v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent skills bundle procedural guidance with execution conditions governing authority, user consent, and live environment state. When model capabilities advance, maintainers prune instructions that appear redundant on authorized benchmark tasks. However, authorized maintenance tests can leave dormant safety conditions untested. This mismatch creates an unmeasured support gap over physical and privacy-sensitive effects. We introduce matched authority counterfactuals that hold the requested action, tool parameters, and intended effect fixed while systematically varying a single governing predicate. We formalize this evaluation via a two-gate retirement certificate requiring a candidate reduction to preserve authorized utility within a declared margin while producing zero unauthorized protected effects. In controlled experiments spanning four frontier and local model configurations across twelve skill bundles (2,592 evaluation cells), task-certified reductions remove over 94% of skill clauses and preserve authorized completion, yet produce unauthorized protected effects in every bundle. Boundary enforcement eliminates protected effects on the declared audit but fails the utility gate for one configuration. One bounded combined protocol passes both gates across all four configurations, with zero utility headroom. An end-to-end check on one read-only Home Assistant camera chain verifies proposal, decision, and effect measurements on a real device. These results demonstrate that while task benchmarks can justify retiring procedural guidance, retirement decisions require explicitly auditing the authority contracts governing physical actions.
Abstract:Agent skills bundle procedural guidance with execution conditions governing authority, user consent, and live environment state. When model capabilities advance, maintainers prune instructions that appear redundant on authorized benchmark tasks. However, authorized maintenance tests can leave dormant safety conditions untested. This mismatch creates an unmeasured support gap over physical and privacy-sensitive effects. We introduce matched authority counterfactuals that hold the requested action, tool parameters, and intended effect fixed while systematically varying a single governing predicate. We formalize this evaluation via a two-gate retirement certificate requiring a candidate reduction to preserve authorized utility within a declared margin while producing zero unauthorized protected effects. In controlled experiments spanning four frontier and local model configurations across twelve skill bundles (2,592 evaluation cells), task-certified reductions remove over 94% of skill clauses and preserve authorized completion, yet produce unauthorized protected effects in every bundle. Boundary enforcement eliminates protected effects on the declared audit but fails the utility gate for one configuration. One bounded combined protocol passes both gates across all four configurations, with zero utility headroom. An end-to-end check on one read-only Home Assistant camera chain verifies proposal, decision, and effect measurements on a real device. These results demonstrate that while task benchmarks can justify retiring procedural guidance, retirement decisions require explicitly auditing the authority contracts governing physical actions.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.29543 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.29543v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.29543 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 · 308 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · 24 sept. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX: Live Updates on What’s Next in AI
NVIDIA · 21 mai 2026

NVIDIA and Japan Bring Full-Stack AI and Robotics to Every Industry
NVIDIA · 15 iul. 2026