# The Autonomous Agency Scale: A Behavioral Framework for Measuring Self-Directed Behavior in AI Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17947 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.17947/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 2 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Levels of Autonomy for AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12469/) (2025)
- [Measuring Progress Toward AGI: A Cognitive Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.28405/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Existing AI measurement frameworks quantify cognitive capability, task automation, or catastrophic risk, but none measure autonomous agency: the extent to which a system behaves in a self-directed way. A system can saturate capability benchmarks while remaining entirely reactive, acting only when prompted and ceasing all activity when a task completes. We introduce the Autonomous Agency Scale (AAS), a behavioral framework that scores AI systems on a 0-5 lexicon across seven dimensions of agency: cognitive autonomy, temporal persistence, environmental agency, social agency, creative agency, self-awareness, and goal formation, each operationalized by falsifiable threshold tests. Every dimension is scored in two temporal bands: an Active band covering engaged, user-initiated activity, and an Ambient band covering idle periods. Ambient Level 4 is gated by the Idle-Gap Test, a counterfactual criterion (remove all triggers and observe whether internally derived activity persists) that separates self-direction from scheduled rule-following. We apply the scale to six contemporary systems spanning task agents (Claude Code, Manus, Hermes), consumer assistants (ChatGPT, Siri), and a persistent companion architecture (Airi). The two-band profile quantifies a boundary that single-score frameworks conflate: task agents reach Active composites of 2.3-2.4 while scoring 0.6-1.9 Ambient, with every idle-period behavior attributable to user-configured schedules, whereas the companion architecture, evaluated longitudinally, is the only assessed system whose idle-period behavior survives trigger removal. We discuss limitations, including single-rater provenance, developer-evaluator bias on the longitudinal assessment, and the partially operationalized self-direction boundary in the Active band.