mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Calibrated Decision Models for Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: JEV and Laya as System One Decision Layers for LLM-Driven Pentest Agents

arXiv 2609.28940 ↗First posted 24 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.SEcited by 2

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous penetration-testing harnesses use large language models (LLMs) for reconnaissance, exploitation, and reporting, but often rely on those same models to confirm findings, grade severity, and select agents. This can lead to false positives, inflated severity, and wasted compute. We examine how System One decision models, lightweight non-generative classifiers that return typed, calibrated verdicts, can support these decisions. We make five contributions. First, we define four decision points: finding adjudication, severity recalibration, agent pruning, and confirmation loops. Second, we present an exploratory NeuroSploit case study comparing one run with TypeSafe System One (Jev) and one without it against a web target containing 13 vulnerabilities. Differences in severity distribution, runtime, and grading by exposed data type motivate the architecture but do not establish statistical significance. Third, we review published specifications for Jev, Jev-Ultrafast, and the open-source Laya without assuming that results from other benchmarks transfer to penetration testing. Fourth, we discuss RLHF, RLAIF, RLCD, and RLHV as training approaches and their implications for trust in security decisions. Finally, we propose Rave, a domain-adapted System One model, and outline its training data, evaluation protocol, and potential effect on harness assurance.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 15 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

Builds on

15 of 39 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026From Capability to Assurance in Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: A Framework and Reference Implementation19 Sep
  2. 2026Baselines Before Architecture: Evaluating Coding Agents for Autonomous Penetration Testing13 Jul
  3. 2025Penetration Testing of Agentic AI: A Comparative Security Analysis Across Models and Frameworks16 Dec
  4. 2025Multi-Agent Penetration Testing AI for the Web28 Aug
  5. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilities11 Apr

Other references · 10

  1. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
  2. 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 743
  3. 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
  4. 2026JEV-as-a-Judge: Accept When Confident, Escalate When Unsurecited by 14
  5. 2026Calibrated Decisions at Scale: Converting Police Crash Narratives into Probabilistic Crash Variables with a System One Model (Jev)cited by 11
  6. 2026Jev for Scientific Decisions: Evaluating Semantic Choices and Their Consequencescited by 10
  7. 2026Jev-Mem: System-One-Controlled Agentic Memory for Efficient AI Agentscited by 9
  8. 2026REFLEX with Jev for Efficient Selective Control in LLM Agentscited by 9
  9. 2025Cybersecurity AI: The Dangerous Gap Between Automation and Autonomycited by 3
  10. 2025The Role of AI in Modern Penetration Testingcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirements
  2. 2026Big Enough to Break Out: Tracking the Rising Capability of LLM Penetration-Testing Agents
  3. 2024HackSynth: LLM Agent and Evaluation Framework for Autonomous Penetration Testing
  4. 2025Pentest-R1: Towards Autonomous Penetration Testing Reasoning Optimized via Two-Stage Reinforcement Learning
  5. 2025xOffense: An Autonomous Multi-Agent Framework for Penetration Testing with Domain-Adapted Large Language Models
  6. 2026ZERO-APT: A Closed-Loop Adversarial Framework for LLM-Driven Automated Penetration Testing under Intelligent Defense ↗
  7. 2026Evaluating System One Models for Agent Security Decisions: Reliability, Calibration, and Selective Automation
  8. 2025From Capabilities to Performance: Evaluating Key Functional Properties of LLM Architectures in Penetration Testing