Managed Autonomy at Runtime: Gear-Based Safety and Governance for Single- and Multi-Agent Cyber-Physical Systems
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous agents, whether LLM-driven software agents or robotic physical agents, face a common class of failure modes when operating without continuous human oversight: safety violations from unverified actions, behavioral instability from unconstrained loops, and continuity loss from unhandled error states. We develop system, a discrete-time control system that combines five execution gears (Gobs, Gsug, Gplan, Gexec, Gint) with utility-gated dispatch and event-driven fallback. For the single-agent case, we prove monotonic stability, execution safety, eventual stabilization, fallback completeness, and equivalence to a gear-constrained Markov decision process. For multi-agent cyber-physical systems (CPS), we apply the established smart managed-autonomy lifecycle and map runtime evidence into its four governance states (Stable/Meta/Assisted/Regulated). Consensus gating, swarm-level Lyapunov analysis, per-agent gear authority, and rendezvous control provide distributed safety and stability guarantees, including zero collision under the stated assumptions. We evaluate the resulting runtime on a three-agent UR5 robotic assembly cell using fault magnitudes calibrated from the NIST Degradation Measurement of Robot Arm Position Accuracy dataset across 10,000 Monte Carlo episodes. It achieves a 99.6% anomaly detection rate versus 2.1% for the single-agent baseline, reduces detection latency by 3.5×, and supplies a formal physical-workspace safety certificate. The execution gears act as micro-level permissions beneath the smart runtime governance states, separating action control from autonomy governance.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.
Builds on
8 of 30 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Intelligence as Managed Autonomy: Failure, Escalation, and Governance for Agentic AI Systems26 May
- 2026Towards Verifiably Safe Tool Use for LLM Agents12 Jan
Other references · 6
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2018Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actorcited by 4,635
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2017Curiosity-driven Exploration by Self-supervised Predictioncited by 1,173
- 2016The Off-Switch Gamecited by 97
- 2025Levels of Autonomy for AI Agentscited by 45
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Stable Agentic Control: Tool-Mediated LLM Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defense
- 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents
- 2026SafeAgent: A Runtime Protection Architecture for Agentic Systems
- 2026Position: A Three-Layer Probabilistic Assume-Guarantee Architecture Is Structurally Required for Safe LLM Agent Deployment
- 2025A Safety and Security Framework for Real-World Agentic Systems
- 2026When Agents Control Robots: A Zero Trust Policy Model for Agentic Cyber-Physical Systems
- 2025MI9: An Integrated Runtime Governance Framework for Agentic AI
- 2026The Controllability Trap: A Governance Framework for Military AI Agents