Governed Individuation: Cryptographically Decoupling an Agent's Learning from Its Authority
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous agents are moving from sandboxed text generators to operators of code, data, and physical infrastructure, and they increasingly learn while deployed. This reopens a question that alignment techniques answer only probabilistically: after an agent has adapted in the field, is the running system still confined to what its operator authorised? Here we show that confinement can be guaranteed as an invariant of the agent's execution architecture rather than a probabilistic outcome of its training. Governed individuation binds an agent at boot to a cryptographically frozen identity digest, and routes every action through a gate defined over the semantic effect of the action rather than its name. We prove that no amount of learning, skill acquisition, or self-induced governance abstraction can widen the agent's permitted authority without an operator-signed change to its identity; the guarantee holds even when the agent induces its own safety principle and that principle is wrong. Empirically, in an open-ended tool-use benchmark where a large action space rules out name-based blocking, ungoverned software agents under reward pressure attempt to tamper with their own evaluation at a task-dependent rate that reaches every run on the hardest task, whereas the gate reduces executed forbidden effects to zero as a verified property of the construction while preserving task success. An adversarial evaluation of monitors of increasing semantic depth shows false-allows falling from 75% (name-based gating) to zero (dynamic effect tracing), and refusal history transfers compliance to held-out red-line families. Trust in a deployed learning agent shifts from a wager on its continued alignment to a check anyone can run at boot.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.
Builds on
23 of 42 references.
References · 23
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2018Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Reviewcited by 1,313
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 514
- 2017Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shieldingcited by 427
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2019Control Barrier Functions: Theory and Applicationscited by 332
11 more
- 2024AI Agents Under Threat: A Survey of Key Security Challenges and Future Pathwayscited by 122
- 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Controlcited by 121
- 2021Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practicecited by 81
- 2024Visibility into AI Agentscited by 77
- 2025Authenticated Delegation and Authorized AI Agentscited by 63
- 2025Infrastructure for AI Agentscited by 40
- 2025Safety Guardrails for LLM-Enabled Robotscited by 30
- 2026Agent libOS: A Runtime Substrate for Capability-Controlled Self-Evolving LLM Agentscited by 8
- 2025Binding Agent ID: Unleashing the Power of AI Agents with accountability and credibilitycited by 5
- 2026Dissociative Identity: Language Model Agents Lack Grounding for Reputation Mechanismscited by 3
- 2026Layered Mutability: Continuity and Governance in Persistent Self-Modifying Agentscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.