From Agent Failure Paths to Quantified Residual Risk: A Compositional Framework for Resilient Agentic AI
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic AI is crossing trust boundaries faster than current risk models can represent. Existing approaches provide one of two partial views. They either describe failure mechanisms without producing a transferable residual-risk estimate, or they produce a risk estimate while treating the internal failure path as a black box. We couple those two views by proposing CPSAINT, a seven-layer integrity decomposition over Physical state, Sensors, Data, Compute, Actuators, Environment, and Time, paired with FRIESA-K, a residual-risk functional that maps each failure path to a quantified risk instance. FRIESA-K grounds the resistance term K in a controlled absorbing Markov model so that control effectiveness is derived from state dynamics rather than assigned as an informal score. The result is a concise mechanism-to magnitude pipeline for resilient agentic and embodied AI. We report governance observability through a separate additive penalty instead of inserting governance as a new variable in the resistance functional. We formalize structural composability linking valid failure paths to well-defined risk instances and show the framework on two contrasting scenarios a hard real-time warehouse robot and a governance-instrumented financial-services agent. Across both cases, the same layer grammar, variable semantics, and dynamic-resistance construction remain intact. Thus, we obtain a compact kernel that supports cross-domain reasoning, explicit assumptions, and quantitatively grounded formalism of composable trust.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.
Builds on
10 of 24 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2026SoK: The Attack Surface of Agentic AI - Tools and Autonomy24 Mar
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
- 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents24 Mar
Other references · 7
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,761
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2024On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agentscited by 92
- 2024Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspectivecited by 5
- 2019An Adversarial Risk Analysis Framework for Cybersecuritycited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026A Policy Algebra for Trust-Preserving Agentic AI Execution
- 2025A Safety and Security Framework for Real-World Agentic Systems
- 2026TrustX Agent Risk Classification Framework (ARC): Risk-Tiering Internally Created Agentic AI Systems
- 2025From Failure Modes to Reliability Awareness in Generative and Agentic AI System
- 2026Beyond single-channel agentic benchmarking
- 2026The Controllability Trap: A Governance Framework for Military AI Agents
- 2026Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security
- 2026Beyond Task Success: An Evidence-Synthesis Framework for Evaluating, Governing, and Orchestrating Agentic AI