mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Regret Dominates Surprise: Design-Time Requirements Engineering for Agentic-AI Safety

arXiv 2609.05692 ↗First posted 4 Sep 2026cs.SEcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Requirements engineers for agentic-AI domains face challenges in evaluating, specifying, and operationalizing safe autonomy. Mainstream frameworks, such as Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE), lack mechanisms to systematically address these challenges under epistemic uncertainty. We contribute an approach that builds on GORE to model and simulate safe autonomy in agentic-AI systems. We introduce a novel Regret-Dominance Mechanism (MS-RGR) to operationalize safe autonomy. MS-RGR uses two signals: epistemic surprise (novelty detection) and cognitive regret (evaluative risk) to address the trilemma problem: should the agent operate in routine autonomy, undergo reflective reasoning, or escalate to human? We instantiate MS-RGR in elderly care monitoring and autonomous driving. A 100-seed stochastic simulation shows MS-RGR reduces silent failures to near-zero and detects risk approximately 17.5 times faster than a sensor-only baseline, remaining formally traceable via LTL safety properties. A retrospective proxy instantiation applying the DRI gate post-hoc over execution traces from 208 AGENTHARM scenarios across seven LLMs shows the gate improves harmful-task refusal only for models with strong baseline safety (over 80% pre-gate refusal, e.g., 84.1% to 90.9%), indicating MS-RGR amplifies rather than substitutes for model-level safety training. We discuss threats to validity, positioning MS-RGR as initial feasibility evidence for design-time safety constraints in agentic-AI requirements engineering.

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 13 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2026.

Builds on

13 of 44 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems19 Feb
  2. 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
  3. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct

Other references · 10

  1. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  2. 2025AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challengescited by 167
  3. 2025Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developedcited by 43
  4. 2024Do LLM Agents Have Regret? A Case Study in Online Learning and Gamescited by 33
  5. 2017Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Surveycited by 21
  6. 2022Requirements Engineering for Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Systematic Mapping Studycited by 14
  7. 2024Analyzing and Debugging Normative Requirements via Satisfiability Checkingcited by 5
  8. 2024How Mature is Requirements Engineering for AI-based Systems? A Systematic Mapping Study on Practices, Challenges, and Future Research Directionscited by 5
  9. 2024Integrating Graceful Degradation and Recovery through Requirement-driven Adaptationcited by 2
  10. 2026Data-Dependent Goal Modeling for ML-Enabled Law Enforcement Systemscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Beyond single-channel agentic benchmarking
  2. 2026Intelligence as Managed Autonomy: Failure, Escalation, and Governance for Agentic AI Systems
  3. 2026Taxonomy and Consistency Analysis of Safety Benchmarks for AI Agents
  4. 2026Discovering Agentic Safety Specifications from 1-Bit Danger Signals
  5. 2025Architectures for Building Agentic AI
  6. 2026Agentic Safety is an Epistemic Property, Not a Behavioral One
  7. 2026Separating Capability from Permission: A Governance Framework for Agentic AI Autonomy Levels
  8. 2025A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents