cs.ROMay 27, 2026

ICAN-Deploy: Identity-Stable Canary Deployment for Safety-Critical Embodied Agents

Authors: Xue QinSimin LuanJohn SeeZeyd BoukhersCong YangZhijun Li

Abstract

Canary deployment routes a fraction of traffic to a new software version, monitors metrics, and rolls back on regression. Mainstream controllers (Argo Rollouts, Spinnaker, Flagger) change the deployed system's cryptographic identity during the canary window. The drift is harmless for stateless microservices but breaks the claim that "the agent you certified is still the agent you have" for safety-critical embodied agents, forcing re-certification per canary. We present ICAN-Deploy (Identity-stable CANary Deployment), a middleware construction whose state machine holds the identity hash invariant across the canary window by separating capability names (frozen, hashed) from capability versions (mutable runtime state). We implement ICAN-Deploy inside a runtime governance layer for LLM-driven robots and verify invariance by closed-form proof, AST lint, and TLA+ model-checking, then corroborate over N=100 real canary cycles on a Franka Panda arm in MuJoCo (zero drift; entry latency 95% BCa CI [1.52, 2.01] ms). A feature-flagged strawman that folds versions into the manifest falsifies on the same workload. A system certified once at identity-creation time can then ship arbitrary capability evolution under that same certification, within the version-and-name envelope.

Explore similar work

Jul 6, 2026cs.AI

Governed Individuation: Cryptographically Decoupling an Agent's Learning from Its Authority

Autonomous agents are moving from sandboxed text generators to operators of code, data, and physical infrastructure, and they increasingly learn while deployed. This reopens a question that alignment techniques answer only probabilistically: after an agent has adapted in the field, is the running system still confined to what its operator authorised? Here we show that confinement can be guaranteed as an invariant of the agent's execution architecture rather than a probabilistic outcome of its training. Governed individuation binds an agent at boot to a cryptographically frozen identity digest, and routes every action through a gate defined over the semantic effect of the action rather than its name. We prove that no amount of learning, skill acquisition, or self-induced governance abstraction can widen the agent's permitted authority without an operator-signed change to its identity; the guarantee holds even when the agent induces its own safety principle and that principle is wrong. Empirically, in an open-ended tool-use benchmark where a large action space rules out name-based blocking, ungoverned software agents under reward pressure attempt to tamper with their own evaluation at a task-dependent rate that reaches every run on the hardest task, whereas the gate reduces executed forbidden effects to zero as a verified property of the construction while preserving task success. An adversarial evaluation of monitors of increasing semantic depth shows false-allows falling from 75% (name-based gating) to zero (dynamic effect tracing), and refusal history transfers compliance to held-out red-line families. Trust in a deployed learning agent shifts from a wager on its continued alignment to a check anyone can run at boot.
Xue Qin, Simin Luan, Cong Yang +1
Jul 15, 2026cs.AI

CAVA: Canonical Action Verification and Attestation for Runtime Governance of Agentic AI Systems

Agentic AI systems increasingly act through heterogeneous runtimes: local coding hooks, SDK tools, browser automation, managed-agent traces, API gateways, and workflow engines. A single operational act such as publishing code, changing identity state, moving money, or exporting data may therefore be represented by many incompatible runtime records. This makes a basic governance question difficult to answer: what action was actually approved, what evidence binds the approval to execution, and can an independent verifier reproduce the same action identity later? This paper presents Canonical Action Verification and Attestation (CAVA), a runtime-semantics layer for converting heterogeneous agent activity into canonical runtime action objects. CAVA is positioned below Proof-Carrying Agent Actions (PCAA): PCAA defines the deployer-owned route-review-prove governance process, while CAVA defines the stable action object that process governs. The paper formalizes canonical action identity, semantic pattern detection, approval binding, receipt integrity, runtime-portable projection, and optional attestation substrates. We study a reference implementation through a 96-seed, 384-variant benchmark covering semantic equivalence, semantic separation, wrapper bypass, false-positive control, approval binding, receipt reproducibility, attestation tamper detection, runtime portability, semantic pattern detection, policy degradation, and Azure deployment drills. The contribution is a systems formulation of action-level canonicalization and policy-addressable semantic patterns as a necessary substrate for deployer-side AI governance.
Zexun Wang
Aug 3, 2026cs.AI

Securing Agentic AI: From Per-Action Checks to Trajectory Assurance

Autonomous agents are increasingly used to execute consequential tasks in environments governed by operational constraints, organizational policies, regulatory requirements, and technical standards. Their safety is therefore determined not by the correctness of individual actions, but by whether their overall behavior remains consistent with the rules and invariants of the systems in which they operate. As large language model (LLM)-based agents become more autonomous and increasingly delegate tasks across organizational boundaries, securing them evolves from a single challenge into a broad and interconnected landscape spanning the entire agentic stack. At the single-agent level, untrusted inputs through prompts, memory, retrieved knowledge, and tool interfaces create attack surfaces. In multi-agent settings, delegation and communication introduce challenges related to identity, trust, capability control, and decision transparency, while the underlying model routing and execution control plane remains vulnerable to manipulation and to unverified model provenance. Perhaps the most fundamental challenge is behavioral containment: sequences of individually permissible actions may collectively violate system-level constraints and safety invariants. At the broader level, supply-chain integrity, provenance, accountability, and end-to-end observability remain largely open problems. A common principle unifies these directions: security must become a verifiable property of the architectures, protocols, and runtimes that govern agent behavior, rather than an optional layer of guidance. Charting these challenges provides a roadmap toward trustworthy autonomous agent deployment.
Alireza Lotfi, Subangkar Karmaker Shanto, Imtiaz Karim +1