Governed Capability Evolution: Lifecycle-Time Compatibility Checking and Rollback for AI-Component-Based Systems, with a Proof-of-Concept Evaluation on Embodied Agents
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Systems built from versioned AI components need lifecycle-time governance over how a new module version is admitted, monitored, and withdrawn. Established deployment patterns (canary, blue-green, feature flags, MLOps) monitor aggregate service-level signals of stateless services, not the stateful, policy-constrained runtimes that drive AI components. We formulate governed capability evolution as a software-lifecycle problem and ask whether staged upgrade governance prevents unsafe activations where practice-adapted canary and blue-green deployment do not, and at what cost. We propose four compatibility checks (interface, policy, behavioral, recovery) and a seven-stage pipeline (validation, sandbox, shadow, gated activation, monitoring, rollback, audit). A reference prototype is evaluated in a behavioral simulation of an embodied manipulation stack; a PyBullet backend replicates the strategy ordering. Upgrade candidates come from a seeded fault-operator generator, including out-of-taxonomy probes, and thresholds are fixed on a disjoint development set. Across five strategies, five upgrade rounds and 15 seeds, naive upgrade reaches 73.3% final-round success but activates unsafe versions in 74.7% of rounds. Canary and blue-green adaptations keep comparable success yet still admit faulty versions in 61.3% and 64.0% of rounds, because aggregate success hides policy and recovery regressions. Governed upgrade admits no in-taxonomy fault and one out-of-taxonomy probe in 75 rounds, at a 4.6-point success cost (Holm-adjusted p<=0.024 against all three baselines); the full pre-activation stack detects 97.3-100% of in-taxonomy faults across deployment profiles, and rollback restores verified operation in 72.4% of drift scenarios. Bounded-window aggregate-success gating proved insufficient against these fault operators; staged governance closes the gap at a modest, tunable cost.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2026.
Builds on
30 of 56 references.
References · 30
- 2023RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Controlcited by 2,993
- 2022Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordancescited by 2,302
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
- 2018Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Reviewcited by 1,313
- 2022Code as Policies: Language Model Programs for Embodied Controlcited by 1,172
- 2022Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Modelscited by 1,057
- 2017Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shieldingcited by 427
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 347
- 2021Safe Learning in Robotics: From Learning-Based Control to Safe Reinforcement Learningcited by 337
- 2019Control Barrier Functions: Theory and Applicationscited by 332
- 2020Accelerating Reinforcement Learning with Learned Skill Priorscited by 220
- 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agentscited by 196
18 more
- 2022Robot Operating System 2: Design, Architecture, and Uses In The Wildcited by 190
- 2020Challenges in Deploying Machine Learning: a Survey of Case Studiescited by 151
- 2017Behavior Trees in Robotics and AI: An Introductioncited by 105
- 2024AutoRT: Embodied Foundation Models for Large Scale Orchestration of Robotic Agentscited by 83
- 2024TrustAgent: Towards Safe and Trustworthy LLM-based Agentscited by 62
- 2022Skill-based Model-based Reinforcement Learningcited by 50
- 2019Assuring the Machine Learning Lifecycle: Desiderata, Methods, and Challengescited by 39
- 2025Safety Guardrails for LLM-Enabled Robotscited by 30
- 2021Run Time Assurance for Safety-Critical Systems: An Introduction to Safety Filtering Approaches for Complex Control Systemscited by 25
- 2025MI9: An Integrated Runtime Governance Framework for Agentic AIcited by 18
- 2026Agent Behavioral Contracts: Formal Specification and Runtime Enforcement for Reliable Autonomous AI Agentscited by 18
- 2024Swiss Cheese Model for AI Safety: A Taxonomy and Reference Architecture for Multi-Layered Guardrails of Foundation Model Based Agentscited by 13
- 2018Formal Specification and Verification of Autonomous Robotic Systems: A Surveycited by 9
- 2026ACRFence: Preventing Semantic Rollback Attacks in Agent Checkpoint-Restorecited by 9
- 2026AEROS: A Single-Agent Operating Architecture with Embodied Capability Modulescited by 6
- 2020Putting the Semantics into Semantic Versioningcited by 1
- 2022Automating Staged Rollout with Reinforcement Learningcited by 1
- 2026LITHE: Bridging Best-Effort Python and Real-Time C++ for Hot-Swapping Robotic Control Laws on Commodity Linuxcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.