NuHF Claw: A Risk Constrained Cognitive Agent Framework for Human Centered Procedure Support in Digital Nuclear Control Rooms
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid digitization of nuclear power plant main control rooms has fundamentally reshaped operator interaction patterns, introducing complex soft-control behaviors and elevated cognitive risks that are not adequately addressed by existing human reliability analysis approaches. Although recent advances in large language models and autonomous agents offer new opportunities for intelligent decision support, their deployment in safety critical environments remains constrained by risks of hallucinated reasoning and weakened human authority. This study proposes NuHF Claw, a persistent cognitive-risk agent framework that enables risk governed human centered autonomy for digital nuclear operations. The core methodological innovation lies in the introduction of a risk constrained agent runtime, which tightly couples cognitive state inference with probabilistic safety assessment to regulate autonomous system behavior in real time. By integrating cognitively grounded workload and situational awareness estimation with dynamic human error probability prediction, the framework transforms conventional offline reliability analysis into a proactive intervention mechanism embedded directly within operational workflows. Experimental validation on a high-fidelity digital control room simulator demonstrates that NuHF Claw can anticipate interface induced cognitive degradation, dynamically constrain unsafe autonomous recommendations, and provide risk-aware navigational guidance while preserving human decision authority. The results highlight a fundamental shift from automation-driven operation toward cognition-aware autonomy, offering a principled pathway for the safe integration of intelligent agents into next-generation nuclear control environments.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 3 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2026.
Builds on
3 of 39 references.
References · 3
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2025Code to Think, Think to Code: A Survey on Code-Enhanced Reasoning and Reasoning-Driven Code Intelligence in LLMscited by 47
- 2024KRAIL: A Knowledge-Driven Framework for Base Human Reliability Analysis Integrating IDHEAS and Large Language Modelscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026TEAM-SimHRA: A Team-Based Simulation Framework for Human Reliability Analysis Using Multi-Agent Large Language Models
- 2026RADIANT-LLM: an Agentic Retrieval Augmented Generation Framework for Reliable Decision Support in Safety-Critical Nuclear Engineering
- 2026Beyond single-channel agentic benchmarking
- 2025Agentic Physical AI toward a Domain-Specific Foundation Model for Energy Systems: A Case Study on Nuclear Reactor Control
- 2026Regret Dominates Surprise: Design-Time Requirements Engineering for Agentic-AI Safety
- 2025Nuclear Deployed: Analyzing Catastrophic Risks in Decision-making of Autonomous LLM Agents
- 2025HARNESS: Human-Agent Risk Navigation and Event Safety System for Proactive Hazard Forecasting in High-Risk DOE Environments
- 2026The Controllability Trap: A Governance Framework for Military AI Agents