mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Gubernaut: A Deterministic Homeostatic Controller for Affect-Regulated LLM Agents, Validated Across Independent Model Families

arXiv 2607.24339 ↗First posted 27 Jul 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) agents inherit reactive failure modes: escalation under provocation, sycophantic drift under flattery, perseveration when stuck. These are failures of propensity, not capability; they concern what a model does under sustained pressure, which training-time alignment reduces but does not eliminate at runtime. This research led to the Gubernaut Cognitive Controller (GCC), a model-agnostic runtime control layer in a Nelson--Narens monitoring--control loop: an object level reads and writes text, while a deterministic meta level reads only the numeric telemetry {intensity, valence, repetition} and returns a regulating posture. Because the meta level ingests zero tokens, no injection channel to the controller exists by construction (an architectural property, not yet adversarially tested); the text-exposed arbiter's compliance is measured, not assumed. We evaluate the GCC with a pre-registered, generate-once/judge-many protocol across a 4x4 matrix of four frontier models (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Grok 4.3), each serving as both a generator and a judge. The regulated arm is calmer in 13 of 16 cells at p<.05 and 15 of 16 by sign; the three sub-threshold cells, including a -0.04 null, all fall on the single near-saturated host. The effect survives a lineage-independent fourth judge family (xAI), strong evidence that it is no artifact of shared judge style. The clearest mechanism is the recovery signature: arousal that integrates under attack and then decays, valence-gated, on de-escalation, replicating across all four families. Transcripts and panels ship with SHA-256 provenance and are re-judgeable; five failure modes are pre-registered. No consciousness claims are made.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 4 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.

Builds on

4 of 10 references.

References · 4

  1. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
  2. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
  3. 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
  4. 2026Measuring Progress Toward AGI: A Cognitive Frameworkcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025OmniReflect: Discovering Transferable Constitutions for LLM agents via Neuro-Symbolic Reflections
  2. 2026Agentic Cognitive Depth: Operational Criteria for Evaluating LLM Agents
  3. 2025Structured Cognitive Loop for Behavioral Intelligence in Large Language Model Agents (Extended Revision: From Behavioral Architecture to Epistemic Accountability)
  4. 2026Agentic Control in Variational Language Models
  5. 2025What Do LLM Agents Do When Left Alone? Evidence of Spontaneous Meta-Cognitive Patterns
  6. 2025Reflex First, Reflect Later: Latency-Aware Embodied LLM Agents for Dynamic Response
  7. 2025LLM-Agent-Controller: A Universal Multi-Agent Large Language Model System as a Control Engineer
  8. 2026LLM Parkinsonism: Executive-Control Failure, Token-Inefficient Persistence, and an Uncertainty-Aware Global Executive Control Architecture for Autonomous Language-Model Agents