Oversight Has a Capacity: Calibrating Agent Guards to a Subjective, Fatiguing Human

Emre Turan

cs.AIJun 8, 2026

Oversight Has a Capacity: Calibrating Agent Guards to a Subjective, Fatiguing Human

Authors: Emre Turan

Organizations: Independent Researcher

Abstract

As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person. We argue the gate is the easy part; the hard part is the judgment - which actions to stop - which the field evaluates against two false assumptions: that there is a ground-truth notion of "risky," and that the human reviewer is a perfect, infinitely-available oracle. On a hand-labeled set of 125 adversarially-weighted agent actions we show that (i) reviewers only moderately agree on what is risky (Fleiss' kappa = 0.52), so there is no single correct label; (ii) framing the guard as selective classification under asymmetric cost makes its operating limits measurable, and on hard inputs the guard cannot safely auto-decide; and (iii) when the reviewer is modeled as endogenous (fatiguing as escalation load grows), realized safety becomes an inverted-U in the escalation rate: more human oversight can make a system less safe, and the safety-optimal guard escalates below full escalation - a setting a load-aware policy also uses to resist a flooding attack that slips a malicious action past a fatigued reviewer. Agent oversight, framed this way, is not only a classification problem but a resource-allocation one: human attention is finite, and the guard's escalation policy spends it. We claim none of these mechanisms as novel - fatigue-aware learning-to-defer (FALCON), cost-sensitive deferral under workload constraints (DeCCaF), trajectory-level guarding, and reviewer-fatigue/flooding attacks are all prior art we cite. Our contribution is an open-source agent-oversight system that operationalizes and measures them in the LLM-agent action-gating setting, turning "is my guard good?" from a guess into a curve. The inverted-U and the flooding attack are modeling results that motivate a human study.

Explore similar work

Jun 4, 2026cs.AI

From Risk Classification to Action Plan Remediation: A Guardrail Feedback Driven Framework for LLM Agents

LLM-based guardrails typically safeguard agents by evaluating proposed actions or inputs before execution, producing safety signals such as binary allow/deny decisions, risk categories, and/or explanatory rationales about potential policy violations. However, agent risks often arise when otherwise benign tasks are contaminated by untrusted external content, unsafe instructions, or risky tool use. Existing guardrails often flag the entire task uniformly as unsafe, thereby blocking the threat but sacrificing the benign part. Moreover, existing work largely evaluates guardrails in isolation, leaving unclear whether their interventions lead to safer downstream agent behavior. To address this, we introduce TRIAD (Tripartite Response for Iterative Agent Guardrailing), a guardrail-integrated agent framework that leverages guardrail-generated verbal feedback as a guiding signal to keep the agent aligned with benign objectives at each planning step. We finetune a language model on a self-curated training dataset to output one of three decisions: proceed, refuse, or update, together with structured natural-language feedback. Rather than merely allowing or blocking execution, update guides the agent to revise its plan, avoid harmful components, and preserve the benign task where possible. TRIAD injects this feedback into the agent's context, enabling subsequent plan revision and forming a closed loop between guardrail feedback and agent planning. Extensive experiments on ASB and AgentHarm show that TRIAD reduces the average attack success rate to 10.42%, while achieving the best safety-utility trade-off among guardrail-integrated baselines. Our code is available at: https://github.com/YUHAOSUNABC/TRIAD.

Yuhao Sun, Jiacheng Zhang, Shaanan Cohney +3

Guardrail Large Language Model Safety Large Language Model Agents Remediation Feedback Learning Downstream Reasoning

Ask PDF

Jun 19, 2026cs.AI

Calibration Is Not Control: Why LLM-Agent Oversight Needs Intervention

Runtime oversight for LLM agents is commonly framed as scalar risk prediction: estimate failure likelihood, confidence, or uncertainty, then intervene once the score crosses a threshold. We argue that this framing targets the wrong object for control. The relevant question is not how likely the agent is to fail if it continues, but whether an available intervention would improve the outcome. Two trajectory prefixes can have the same risk estimate while requiring different actions, because one remains recoverable and the other does not. We formalize this mismatch as target error and identify intervention advantage, the expected utility gain from intervening rather than continuing, as the decision object for oversight. To measure this mismatch, we introduce prefix branching, a same-prefix counterfactual protocol that executes candidate actions from identical trajectory states. Across four benchmarks, action-conditioned control yields regime-dependent gains over scalar routing. In a calibration decomposition, recalibrating the same scalar score improves prediction metrics but leaves control regret unchanged, showing that calibration alone does not repair target error. A simple prefix-only action-conditioned controller substantially reduces regret in the strongest interactive regime, from 0.506 to 0.110 on ALFWorld. Gains shrink when interventions are weak or when scalar routing already preserves intervention-relevant information. These results suggest that LLM-agent oversight should move from calibrated risk scoring toward action-conditioned value estimation.

Chubin Zhang, Zhenglin Wan, Xingrui Yu +5

Counterfactual Reasoning

Ask PDF

Aug 24, 2026cs.AI

AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loop

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

Margaret Mitchell, Avijit Ghosh, Samir Passi

Artificial Intelligence Agents Scalable Oversight Human Oversight Autonomy Human Cognitive Science+1

Ask PDF