Autonomy

Autonomous robotic systems are being proposed for use in hazardous environments, often to reduce the risks to human workers. In the immediate future, it is likely that human workers will continue to use and direct these autonomous robots, much like other computerised tools but with more sophisticated decision-making. Therefore, one important area on which to focus engineering effort is ensuring that these users trust the system. Recent literature suggests that explainability is closely related to how trustworthy a system is. Like safety and security properties, explainability should be designed into a system, instead of being added afterwards. This paper presents an abstract architecture that supports an autonomous system explaining its behaviour (explainable autonomy), providing a design template for implementing explainable autonomous systems. We present a worked example of how our architecture could be applied in the civil nuclear industry, where both workers and regulators need to trust the system's decision-making capabilities.

Assistive robots operating under shared autonomy must balance user control with autonomous assistance. Because robot actions depend on internal intent inference that is not directly observable, mismatches between inferred and intended goals can undermine coordination and trust. We investigate how interface-level transparency, including feedback modality (visual vs. auditory) and information richness (sparse vs. rich), shapes interaction in a vision-based shared autonomy system. In a user study with N=25 participants across two assistive manipulation tasks, we evaluate how these designs influence coordination and trust. Providing feedback significantly improves intent alignment and reduces corrective intervention, indicating that making the inferred goal legible accelerates convergence in shared control. Participants preferred visual over auditory feedback, while preferences for sparse versus rich information depended on task complexity. We also found that revealing the full belief distribution did not consistently improve alignment or trust. Together, these findings indicate that effective transparency enhances coordination primarily through goal legibility, while trust depends on task-appropriate information exposure rather than maximal disclosure. Based on these results, we outline guidelines for designing transparent shared autonomy systems.

Existing datasets cannot support large-scale learning in multi-agent, multi-sensor, or multi-domain autonomy, where diversity and coordination are essential. We present a modular dataset generation pipeline that creates terabyte-scale, ground-truth-labeled data for ground, aerial, and infrastructure-based systems using the AVstack framework and CARLA simulator. Supporting single- and multi-agent configurations with flexible sensor suites, the pipeline enables controllable experimentation across challenging conditions. Representative perception and fusion studies show how generated data can support application-specific training and collaborative autonomy.

Deep learning models are increasingly central to autonomous vehicle (AV) pipelines, yet their integration has traditionally followed a monolithic design where perception, planning, and control execute on a single onboard computer. This design overlooks the emerging paradigm of cooperative autonomy, where vehicles interact with roadside units (RSUs), edge servers, and cloud-hosted intelligence through vehicle-to-everything (V2X) connectivity. Cooperative perception and control improve safety and efficiency, but also introduce systems-level challenges: network latency, compute heterogeneity, and multi-tenant contention, all critically affect real-time decision-making. These challenges are further amplified by the increasing reliance on large foundation models, whose scale necessitates cloud deployment. We present CADET (Cooperative Autonomy through Distributed Experimentation Toolkit), a modular platform for systematic and reproducible evaluation of distributed cooperative autonomy systems under realistic deployment conditions. CADET decouples the AV stack into composable modules that can be flexibly deployed across vehicles, infrastructure, and edge/cloud tiers. The framework integrates state-of-the-art models, incorporates trace-driven network and workload emulation, and provides synchronized model-, system-, and task-level instrumentation. Through V2V and V2I experiments, we show that distributed deployment choices fundamentally shape safety, with V2V intent packets outperforming cloud-based perception and RSU-assisted perception sustaining safety until overloaded by concurrent requests. Although designed for AV pipelines, CADET also supports dataset-driven experimentation, enabling systems and ML researchers to benchmark distributed inference workloads independently of full vehicle simulation. CADET is open source, with code and demo available at https://nesl.github.io/cadet-web.

Spatial neural processing units (NPUs) provide an energy-efficient platform for edge LLM inference, but efficiently deploying an LLM end-to-end on such hardware remains labor-intensive. Although AI coding agents have begun to lower this cost, existing studies have largely focused on single-kernel optimization rather than end-to-end LLM deployment on resource-constrained spatial NPUs. We present a two-stage methodology, instantiated on the AMD XDNA 2 NPU, that progresses from human-guided development to agent autonomy. In the first stage, we develop a reference deployment of Llama-3.2-1B through human-guided agent assistance. The resulting implementation achieves a speedup of 2.2x on prefill and 4.0x on decode over the hand-optimized baseline, with the optimization trajectory and its lessons recorded as structured documentation throughout. In the second stage, we distill the documentation into an agent skill system consisting of eight phases, orchestrating the optimization and debugging skill sets, with numerical correctness strictly enforced at each phase. Using our agent skill system, we autonomously deploy eight additional decoder-only LLMs (Llama-3.2-3B, SmolLM2-1.7B, Qwen2.5-{0.5B, 1.5B, 3B}, Qwen3-{0.6B, 1.7B, 4B}) end-to-end on the AMD XDNA 2 NPU using the open-source compiler stack. To our knowledge, these models have not previously been deployed on AMD NPUs via any open-source software stack. Each deployment completes in 0.5-4 hours of agent wall time with almost no human guidance, and passes the numerical-correctness gates, demonstrating functional generalization to previously unencountered LLMs. Three of the eight match or exceed the sustained performance of our Llama-3.2-1B reference deployment, suggesting that the resulting implementations can be competitive without additional model-specific human engineering.

As autonomous and agentic AI systems scale in robotic and human-machine environments, managing hallucination and persistent but unjustified action remains an open challenge. Rather than attributing these failures solely to model or alignment limitations, this paper explores the architectural vulnerability of unbounded autonomy - the presumption that an agent should continue operating regardless of rising uncertainty. It introduces a theory of managed autonomy that defines intelligent behavior through the formal capacity to detect epistemic drift, suspend reasoning, attempt recovery, and ultimately surrender control when reliability diminishes. We instantiate this theory via the SMARt (Self-Managing Multi-tier Autonomous Reasoning with Regulated/Revoked transitions) model, a four-layer framework featuring Stable, Meta-cognitive, Assisted, and Regulated states. By developing a timed, guarded Petri net formulation, we establish theoretically bounded properties for the system, demonstrating how architecture can formally mandate escalation, constrain invalid outputs, and ensure governance reachability under specified conditions. We further analyze how incorporating domain-specific trigger sets across varied operational settings (e.g., healthcare, robotics, etc.) can systematically preserve safety, assuming completeness and soundness criteria are met. Because these triggers are designed to be adaptive, the SMARt model accommodates the safe, controlled expansion of an agent's operational scope over time. We conclude that formalizing failure management within the autonomy lifecycle is a crucial step toward realizing reliable and governed artificial intelligence.

We prove that no reinforcement learning policy with confidence-gated autonomy can simultaneously achieve maximum helpfulness, optimal calibration, and full autonomy under rational oversight, whenever some tasks exceed the agent's reliable competence: the Behavioral Credibility Trilemma. The impossibility is geometric -- adding any non-affine autonomy incentive to a strictly proper scoring rule destroys strict properness, so an agent rewarded for both calibrated confidence and autonomous action systematically inflates its reported confidence on tasks below the principal's approval threshold. The Behavioral Perturbation Lemma quantifies the inflation (scaling as $w_A/(2 w_C)$ for the Brier score) and shows detection requires $Ω(1/Δ^2)$ observations. We prove the principal's optimal oversight rule is necessarily non-affine, making the impossibility unconditional and optimizer-independent across log-concave-density policy families. We formalize the Confidence-Gated Decision Problem, map existing methods onto the trilemma, and identify two constructive resolution pathways (commitment, domain separation). A 540-configuration Best-of-N experiment tests five pre-registered hypotheses, all strongly confirmed (effect sizes $d = 1.10$ to $5.32$), and adds a descriptive analysis of the achievable-$(H, C, A)$ surface geometry showing a plateau-truncated frontier consistent with the predicted inflation saturation.

KYA (Know Your Agents) is an open-source, framework-agnostic trust and governance layer for autonomous systems, composed of five primitives: (1) a four-gate inbound apply pipeline; (2) an only-tighten composition algebra over a three-channel multi-tenant hierarchy; (3) KYP (Know Your Principal), a schema-level unification of trust scoring across human users, AI agents, and service accounts; (4) auditable interaction-multiplier amplification over an AIVSS-shaped additive baseline; and (5) two-axis delegation attribution: a static premium for risky delegates and a runtime debit for actual delegate misbehavior in multi-agent fan-out. Together these span three pillars (trust, governance, and evidentiary assurance), making an autonomous system's actions authorized, policy-conforming, and post-hoc verifiable: where observability answers how long, how much, and what path, KYA answers was it authorized, did it conform, and can it be verified; it composes with observability rather than replacing it. It ships native adapters for 15+ agent frameworks. On a 4 by 9 cross-backend matrix all 36 cells pass; the pure-function scorer runs sub-millisecond at p99 and the system sustains ~ 1,800 ops/sec at 20 concurrent workers with HMAC chain integrity preserved end-to-end. KYA detects 89% of 1,200 adversarial probes from PyRIT and Garak, including the recently-published topology-guided multi-agent attack. The system is available under Apache 2.0 as the veldt-kya package on PyPI.

AI-enabled military systems are a fixture of modern military conflict. Applications vary from autonomous drones for surveillance and attack to AI-supported target selection. The importance of AI for modern conflict shows also in public disputes between governments and technology companies over the conditions for military access to frontier AI. Both military uses and government attempts at enabling and steering them happen before a backdrop of public opinion, yet we still know little about how people think about military AI. Drawing on a preregistered survey of 9,000 respondents in nine countries, including China, Germany, and the United States, we examine whether support for military AI is shaped primarily by general attitudes toward AI, principled opposition to lethal autonomy, or foreign-policy and geopolitical orientations. Across six military AI scenarios that vary in lethality and human control, respondents who view AI as beneficial are substantially more supportive of military AI. Hawkish respondents are also more supportive. By contrast, principled opposition to lethal autonomy is not broadly associated with the full index but is related to the application of fully autonomous lethal force. Contrary to our expectation, perceived AI risks are positively associated with support. Cross-national differences are moderate and broadly consistent with geopolitical context. Overall, public opinion toward military AI appears conditionally permissive. Publics are not categorically opposed to various military uses of AI. Instead, unease is concentrated around fully autonomous lethal force.

Realizing Level 4/5 Autonomous Networks (AN) demands a shift from static automation to agent-native intelligence. Current operations, reliant on rigid scripts, lack the cognitive agency to handle off-nominal conditions. To address this, this letter proposes a hierarchical multi-agent reference architecture enabling high-level autonomy. The framework features a Dual-Driven Orchestrator that coordinates specialized Executive Agents, supported by a shared Public Memory for unified domain knowledge. A key innovation is the integration of agent self-awareness, which empowers the system to harmonize deliberative strategic governance with reflexive fault recovery. We instantiate and validate this architecture within a 5G Core environment. Case studies demonstrate that the system sustains critical throughput under congestion and reduces Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) by 86%, confirming its efficacy in unifying strategic planning with operational resilience.

Skill atrophy, the gradual decline of human capability under AI assistance, poses a safety risk in shared-control of semi-autonomous systems, where operators may be unable to distinguish their own inputs from autonomous corrections. We propose Proximal State Nudging (PSN), a shared autonomy algorithm that jointly optimizes for skill development and task performance by nudging users toward states estimated to be most learnable. We first show that PSN outperforms existing shared autonomy baselines in balancing student improvement in unassisted reward with overall shared performance, using simulated students in the classic LunarLander environment. We then present, to the best of our knowledge, the first human subject studies of a planner incorporating learning-compatible shared autonomy: across two driving tasks in the CARLA simulator (High Performance Racing and Parallel Parking, n = 60), PSN produces up to 7x larger gains in unassisted skill than standard blended shared autonomy, while incurring 50% fewer collisions than unassisted self-practice.

AI-assisted research is crossing a threshold: fully automated systems can now generate research papers for as little as $15, while long-horizon agents can execute experiments, draft manuscripts, and simulate critique with minimal human input. Yet this productivity frontier exposes a deeper integrity problem: under scientific pressure, even frontier LLMs still fabricate results, miss hidden errors, and fail to judge novelty reliably. Studying developments through April 2026, we present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle, organized into four epistemological phases: Creation (idea generation, literature review, coding & experiments, tables & figures), Writing (paper writing), Validation (peer review, rebuttal & revision), and Dissemination (posters, slides, videos, social media, project pages, and interactive agents). We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy: AI excels at structured, retrieval-grounded, and tool-mediated tasks, but remains fragile for genuinely novel ideas, research-level experiments, and scientific judgment. Generated ideas often degrade after implementation, research code lags far behind pattern-matching benchmarks, and end-to-end autonomous systems have not yet consistently reached major-venue acceptance standards. We further show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes, making human-governed collaboration the most credible deployment paradigm. Finally, we provide a structured taxonomy, benchmark suite, and tool inventory, cross-stage design principles, and a practitioner-oriented playbook, with resources maintained at our project page.

As autonomous systems grow more advanced, objective metrics to evaluate their ethical and legal compliance are critical for informing end users of their limitations and ensuring accountability of those who misuse them. Current ethical embodied AI frameworks remain mostly qualitative, focusing on system design (through safety guardrails or targeted red teaming), and the realized guardrails often directly disallow unsafe behavior without providing the user with an override or interpretable reason. Instead, there is a need for computable metrics through rigorous testing that allow a user to determine the applicability of the system to the task. To address this gap, we introduce the Reference Ethical Benchmark for Autonomy Readiness (REBAR), a quantitative test and evaluation framework for autonomous systems. REBAR maps operating metrics into a computable Autonomy Readiness Level (ARL) rubric that can quantify ethical performance. Key innovations of the framework include a neuro-symbolic Large Language Model (LLM) approach to calculate and explain the ethical difficulty of scenarios, LLM-driven at-scale generation of test instances, and a versatile, photorealistic simulation environment. By evaluating white-box autonomy solutions through this rigorous testing pipeline, REBAR delivers an objective and repeatable benchmark score, bridging the gap between abstract principles and verifiable, accountable autonomy.

Robotic systems often use predictive uncertainty to decide whether to act autonomously or defer to a fallback policy. In threshold-gated autonomy, uncertainty matters mainly through its ability to rank likely errors. Standard metrics such as expected calibration error and AUROC do not directly test whether uncertainty changes act/defer decisions. We therefore evaluate uncertainty using Spearman rank correlation, paired bootstrap equivalence testing, and act/defer agreement. Across three temporal activity-recognition benchmarks, we find a dataset-dependent competence regime below which uncertainty provides a weak and unstable error ranking. Above this regime, softmax heuristics, MC Dropout, and ensembles produce similar gating behavior, while threshold choice has a much larger effect on execution outcomes. A multi-seed embodied simulation shows the same pattern for collision rate and cost once realized autonomy is matched. Under temporal covariate shift, ranking quality remains stable, but fine grained semantic OOD detection remains near chance. These results suggest that simple uncertainty proxies can suffice for selective gating once the base model is competent, but not for semantic novelty detection.

Long-horizon household tasks demand robust high-level planning and sustained reasoning capabilities, which are largely overlooked by existing embodied AI benchmarks that emphasize short-horizon navigation or manipulation and rely on fixed task categories. We introduce LongAct, a benchmark designed to evaluate planning-level autonomy in long-horizon household tasks specified through free-form instructions. By abstracting away embodiment-specific low-level control, LongAct isolates high-level cognitive capabilities such as instruction understanding, dependency management, memory maintenance, and adaptive planning. We further propose HoloMind, a VLM-driven agent with a DAG-based long-horizon hierarchical planner, a Multimodal Spatial Memory for persistent world modeling, an Episodic Memory for experience reuse, and a global Critic for reflective supervision. Experiments with GPT-5 and Qwen3-VL models show that HoloMind substantially improves long-horizon performance while reducing reliance on model scale. Even top models achieve only 59% goal completion and 16% full-task success, underscoring the difficulty of LongAct and the need for stronger long-horizon planning in embodied agents.

We introduce and open-source the Unified Autonomy Stack, a system-level solution that enables resilient autonomy across diverse aerial and ground robot morphologies. The architecture centers on three synergistic modules -- multi-modal perception, multi-behavior planning, and multi-layered safe navigation -- that together deliver comprehensive mission autonomy. The stack fuses data from LiDAR, radar, vision, and inertial sensing, enabling (a) robust localization and mapping through factor graph-based fusion, (b) semantic scene understanding, (c) motion and informative path planning through sampling-based techniques adaptive across spatial scales, as well as (d) multi-layered safe navigation both through planning on the online reconstructed map and deep learning-driven exteroceptive policies alongside last-resort safety filters using control barrier functions. The resulting behaviors include safe GNSS-denied navigation into unknown and perceptually-degraded regions, exploration of complex environments, object discovery, and efficient inspection planning. The stack has been field-tested and validated on both aerial (rotorcraft) and ground (legged) robots operating in a host of demanding environments, including self-similar and smoke-filled settings, with complex geometries and high obstacle clutter. These tests demonstrate resilient performance in challenging conditions. To facilitate ease of adoption, we open-source the implementation alongside supporting documentation, validation, and evaluation datasets https://github.com/ntnu-arl/unified_autonomy_stack. A video giving the overview of the paper and the field experiments is available at https://youtu.be/l8Su8OXsM-E.

Replicating and surpassing the autonomy of natural organisms remains a long-standing goal in robotics. Yet most robotic systems have their structure, materials, and control designed separately, in sharp contrast to the co-evolution in nature. This separation often leads to suboptimal designs, and we still have a limited understanding of the individual and collective contributions of these design entities. In this work, we propose a gradient-based co-design framework that simultaneously optimizes the topology, material distribution, and control policy of a truss-lattice robot. The framework embeds mixed-type topological and material variables into a continuous design space and integrates a neural network controller within a differentiable simulator, capturing their interactions and enabling efficient gradient calculation via automatic differentiation. Furthermore, we develop a constrained optimization to navigate the highly non-convex design landscape and jointly optimize all design entities. Case studies demonstrate that the proposed framework consistently discovers diverse locomotion strategies that outperform baselines obtained through separated design. The framework is also flexible to accommodate different functional requirements and boundary conditions. Using this framework, we further extract design insights that reveal the individual and collective effects of different entities on robotic performance. The proposed framework provides a computational foundation for the autonomous co-design of robotic systems, capable of reconfiguration, locomotion, and other complex autonomous behaviors.

Deploying agentic AI in regulated contexts requires principled reasoning about two design dimensions: agency (what the system can do) and autonomy (how much it acts without human involvement). Though often treated independently, they are coupled: at higher autonomy, human error correction is less available, so reliable operation requires constraining agency accordingly; compliance requirements reinforce this by mandating human involvement as action consequences grow. Yet no established approach addresses them jointly, leaving practitioners without a principled basis for reasoning about oversight, action consequences, and error correction. This work introduces a two-dimensional design space in which both dimensions are organised into five operational levels, making the coupling explicit and navigable. Autonomy ranges from human-commanded operation (L1) to fully autonomous monitoring (L5); agency ranges from reasoning over supplied context (L1) to committed writes to authoritative records (L5). Building on this space, we propose six architectural tactics--checkpoints, escalation, multi-agent delegation, tool provisioning, tool fencing, and write staging--for adjusting a deployment's position within it. The tactics are grounded in two worked examples from public-sector contexts, illustrating how they apply under realistic compliance constraints. We further examine five deployment parameters--model capability, agent architecture, tool fidelity, workflow bottlenecks, and evaluation--that shape what is achievable at any configuration independently of agency and autonomy. Together, the design space, tactics, and deployment parameters provide a shared vocabulary for principled, compliance-aware agentic AI design in which responsibility, auditability, and reversibility are explicit design considerations rather than properties that must be retrofitted after deployment.

Current large language model agent frameworks prioritize autonomy but lack the governability mechanisms required for enterprise deployment. High-risk write operations proceed without independent review, complex tasks lack acceptance verification, and computational resources are allocated uniformly regardless of risk level. We propose the Dynamic Tiered AgentRunner, a controlled execution protocol distilled from a production-grade multi-tenant SaaS platform. The framework introduces three core mechanisms: (1) Risk-Adaptive Tiering that dynamically allocates computational resources and review intensity based on task risk profiles, achieving Pareto-optimal trade-offs between safety and efficiency; (2) Separation of Powers architecture where proposal, review, execution, and verification are performed by independent agents with physically isolated boundaries; and (3) Resilience-by-Design through a Verifier-Recovery closed loop that treats failure as a first-class system state. We formalize the tier selectio

AI agents are assuming active roles in Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) workflows, yet the research community lacks a shared vocabulary for describing what it means for CI/CD to be agentic, how much decision authority is delegated, and where control should reside. This paper presents a vision of agentic CI/CD in which the central challenge is not improving task performance but designing authority transfer, defined as the delegation of operational decisions from human-controlled pipelines to agent systems under specified constraints and recourse mechanisms. To structure this argument, we introduce a distinction between data-plane authority (localized interventions such as patch generation and test reruns) and control-plane authority (modifications to pipeline configuration, deployment policies, and approval gates). Drawing on research prototypes and industrial platforms, we show that current systems operate mainly at the data plane under bounded autonomy, with safety achieved through surrounding governance infrastructure rather than intrinsic agent guarantees. We identify three recurring patterns: constrained autonomy as the dominant design, external governance as the primary safety mechanism, and a widening gap between deployment momentum and evaluation methodology. We propose a research agenda in which control-plane safety and governance mechanisms represent the most urgent open problem, followed by formalization of autonomy boundaries, evaluation frameworks, and human--agent coordination.

Coding agents are rapidly changing the landscape of software development, moving from inline completion to autonomous systems that edit repositories, open pull requests, respond to issues, and run scheduled or webhook triggered routines across the development life cycle. The next generation is increasingly described as proactive and long-horizon: agents should notice relevant changes before the developer asks, connect signals across tools, decide when to interrupt, and carry preferences across sessions. Yet the field still lacks a clear account of what proactivity means for software development, how it differs from autonomy, what acceptance criteria proactive long-horizon tasks should satisfy, and which metrics determine whether unsolicited agent behavior is useful rather than merely active. Proactive coding agents should be evaluated by the quality and improvement of their insight policy: the policy that decides what matters next, what evidence supports it, whether to show it, and how to adapt after feedback. This view is grounded in the principles of mixed initiative interaction. We propose a three level taxonomy of proactivity (Reactive, Scheduled, and Situation Aware), compare contemporary coding agents against five practical criteria, and sketch an active user simulation protocol with three evaluation targets: Insight Decision Quality (IDQ), Context Grounding Score (CGS), and Learning Lift

Shared autonomy (SA) enables robots to infer human intent and assist in its achievement. While most research focuses on improving intent inference, it overlooks whether humans can understand the robot's intent in return. Without such mutual understanding, collaboration becomes less effective, degrading user experience and task performance. To address this gap, previous studies have explicitly conveyed the robot intent through additional interfaces, which remain unintuitive and limited in expressiveness. Inspired by impedance control, we propose Impedance-Driven Anisotropic Guidance Field Enhanced Shared Autonomy (IAGF-SA), a novel paradigm that extends SA with an embodied, physically-grounded communication channel. This channel adaptively modulates the robot's dynamic response to human input, enabling intuitive, continuous, physically-grounded robot intent communication while naturally guiding human actions. User studies across three scenarios and two teleoperation interfaces indicate that IAGF-SA improves task performance, human-robot agreement, and subjective experience, thus demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing human-robot communication and collaboration.

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are widely known to follow conservative, rule-based motion policies that surrounding drivers can learn to anticipate. A direct consequence is that human drivers may accept shorter longitudinal gaps when cutting in front of an AV than when targeting another human-driven vehicle (HDV). We test this hypothesis using the Waymo Open Motion Dataset (WOMD), which provides 25,906 real-world highway scenarios at 10 hertz. An eight-criterion lane-change detector extracts 706 HDV-to-AV and 3,172 HDV-to-HDV cut-in events from the same traffic environment. The median accepted gap in front of the Waymo AV is 7.58 meters versus 9.57 meters for HDV targets, a 1.99 meter reduction that is statistically significant (p equals 5.76 times 10 to the negative eighth power, d equals negative 0.224) and persists under speed-matched resampling. Cut-in speeds toward the AV are 37 percent higher (51.7 versus 37.7 kilometers per hour, d equals 0.502), and 68.0 percent of AV-targeted cut-ins occur below the 10 meter gap boundary versus 51.8 percent of HDV-targeted events (chi-squared equals 60.5, p is less than 10 to the negative thirteenth power). These results reveal a systematic and safety-relevant asymmetry in human gap-acceptance behavior that warrants AV-specific calibration of both motion-planning safety envelopes and traffic simulation models.

As autonomous vehicles slowly deploy into urban roads for limited use cases with significant edge case issues, closed facilities like marshaling yards provide a ripe case for combining lower-level vehicle autonomy with fixed infrastructure to create full autonomy without similar edge case concerns. Within a delivery marshaling yard, electric fleet vehicles complete a set of sequential tasks (charging, inspection, cleaning, and loading) before exiting the yard with their new load of deliveries. Hybrid automation of the vehicles and infrastructure can allow these vehicles to reach full autonomy and navigate the facility without the need of a driver, allowing for quicker movement between tasks increasing vehicle throughput. However, isolated autonomous operations based on static rules are prone to gridlock causing facility failures that temporarily shut down operations. Our orchestrated autonomy solution uses decentralized, dynamic priority scoring of vehicles based on the current status of the marshaling yard to optimally assign vehicles to tasks to increase vehicle throughput. Using a simulated facility with three marshaling yard sizes (small, medium, and large) and three demand levels (low, medium, high), we demonstrated that our orchestration solution increases vehicle throughput above static, isolated autonomy for all combinations of yard size and demand, while reducing facility failures at high demand levels.

Trust in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be reduced to model accuracy, fluency of generation, or overall positive user impression. In medicine, trust must be engineered as a measurable system property grounded in evidence, supervision, and operational boundaries of AI autonomy. This article proposes a practical framework for trustworthy clinical AI built around three principles: evidence, supervision, and staged autonomy. Rather than replacing deterministic clinical logic wholesale with end-to-end black-box models, the proposed approach combines a deterministic core, a patient-specific AI assistant for contextual validation, a multi-tier model escalation mechanism, and a human supervision layer for verification, escalation, and risk control. We demonstrate that trust also depends on selective verification of clinically critical findings, bounded clinical context, disciplined prompt architecture, and careful evaluation on realistic cases. Classifier-driven modular prompting is examined as an incremental path to scaling clinical depth without sacrificing prompt performance and without waiting for complete rule-based coverage. To operationalize trust, a set of trust metrics is proposed, built on metrological principles -- measurement uncertainty, calibration, traceability -- enabling quantitative rather than subjective assessment of each architectural layer. In this perspective, trustworthy clinical AI emerges not as a property of an individual model, but as an architectural outcome of a system into which evidence trails, human oversight, tiered escalation, and graduated action rights are embedded from the outset.

Current robots are capable of computing plans to accomplish complex tasks. However, real-world environments are inherently open and dynamic, and unforeseen situations frequently arise during plan execution, such as jamming doors and fallen objects on the floor. These situations may result from the robot's own action failures or from external disturbances, such as human activities. Detecting and handling such execution - time situations remains a significant challenge, limiting those robots' ability to achieve long-term autonomy. In this paper, we develop a planning and situation-handling framework, called VAP-TAMP, that enables robots to actively perceive and address unforeseen situations during plan execution. VAP-TAMP leverages action knowledge to strategically prompt vision-language models for active view selection and situation assessment, while constructing and reasoning over scene graphs for integrated task and motion planning. We evaluated VAP-TAMP using service tasks in simulation and on a mobile manipulation platform.

Autonomous AI agents can remain fully authorized and still become unsafe as behavior drifts, adversaries adapt, and decision patterns shift without any code change. We propose the \textbf{Informational Viability Principle}: governing an agent reduces to estimating a bound on unobserved risk $\hat{B}(x) = U(x) + SB(x) + RG(x)$ and allowing an action only when its capacity $S(x)$ exceeds $\hat{B}(x)$ by a safety margin. The \textbf{Agent Viability Framework}, grounded in Aubin's viability theory, establishes three properties -- monitoring (P1), anticipation (P2), and monotonic restriction (P3) -- as individually necessary and collectively sufficient for documented failure modes. \textbf{RiskGate} instantiates the framework with dedicated statistical estimators (KL divergence, segment-vs-rest $z$-tests, sequential pattern matching), a fail-secure monotonic pipeline, and a closed-loop Autopilot formalised as an instance of Aubin's regulation map with kill-switch-as-last-resort; a scalar Viability Index $VI(t) \in [-1,+1]$ with first-order $t^*$ prediction transforms governance from reactive to predictive. Contributions are the theoretical framework, the reference implementation, and analytical coverage against published agent-failure taxonomies; quantitative empirical evaluation is scoped as follow-up work.

We present a deployed system that automates end-to-end customer support workflows inside an enterprise Business Process Management (BPM) platform. The approach is scalable in production and reaches selective automation within two weeks for a new process, leveraging supervision already generated at scale: structured per-case UI interaction traces and low-overhead copilot feedback, where operators either accept a suggestion or provide a correction. A staged deployment pipeline trains a next UI action policy, learns a critic from copilot feedback to calibrate abstention, and executes only high-confidence steps in the background while deferring uncertain decisions to operators and resuming from the updated UI state. This setup lets one operator supervise multiple concurrent sessions and be interrupted only when the system is uncertain. The system operates on a schema-driven view of the BPM interface and includes monitoring and safe fallbacks for production. In production, it automated 45% of sessions and reduced average handling time by 39% without degrading support quality level.

AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute tasks and make decisions within agentic workflows, introducing new requirements for safe and controlled autonomy. Prior work has established the importance of human oversight for ensuring transparency, accountability, and trustworthiness in such systems. However, existing implementations of Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) mechanisms are typically embedded within application logic, limiting reuse, consistency, and scalability across multi-agent environments. This paper presents a decoupled HITL system architecture that treats human oversight as an independent system component within the agent operating environment. The proposed design separates human interaction management from application workflows through explicit interfaces and a structured execution model. In addition, a design framework is introduced to formalize HITL integration along four dimensions: intervention conditions, role resolution, interaction semantics, and communication channel. This framework enables selective and context-aware human involvement while maintaining system-level consistency. The approach supports alignment with emerging agent communication protocols, allowing HITL to be implemented as a protocol-level concern. By externalizing HITL and structuring its integration, the system provides a foundation for scalable governance and progressive autonomy in agentic workflows.

The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics assumes that welfare-bearing agents are autonomous and implicitly relies on a binary distinction between autonomy and instrumentality. Welfare subjects are those who have autonomy and therefore the capacity to choose and enter into utility comparisons, while everything else does not. In post-AGI economies this presupposition becomes nontrivial because artificial systems may exhibit varying degrees of autonomy, functioning as tools, delegates, strategic market actors, manipulators of choice environments, or possible welfare subjects. We argue that the theorem ought to be subject to an autonomy qualification where the impact of these changes in autonomy assumptions is incorporated. Using a minimal general-equilibrium model with autonomy-conditioned welfare, welfare-status assignment, delegation accounting, and verification institutions, we set out conditions for which autonomy-complete competitive equilibrium is autonomy-Pareto efficient. The classical theorem is recovered as the low-autonomy limit.

Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a compelling data-driven paradigm for synthesizing controllers for complex systems when accurate physical models are unavailable; however, most existing control-oriented RL methods assume stationarity and, therefore, struggle in real-world non-stationary deployments where system dynamics and operating conditions can change unexpectedly. Moreover, RL controllers acting in physical environments must satisfy safety constraints throughout their learning and execution phases, rendering transient violations during adaptation unacceptable. Although continual RL and safe RL have each addressed non-stationarity and safety, respectively, their intersection remains comparatively unexplored, motivating the study of safe continual RL algorithms that can adapt over the system's lifetime while preserving safety. In this work, we systematically investigate safe continual reinforcement learning by introducing three benchmark environments that capture safety-critical continual adaptation and by evaluating representative approaches from safe RL, continual RL, and their combinations. Our empirical results reveal a fundamental tension between maintaining safety constraints and preventing catastrophic forgetting under non-stationary dynamics, with existing methods generally failing to achieve both objectives simultaneously. To address this shortcoming, we examine regularization-based strategies that partially mitigate this trade-off and characterize their benefits and limitations. Finally, we outline key open challenges and research directions toward developing safe, resilient learning-based controllers capable of sustained autonomous operation in changing environments.

Autonomous systems increasingly execute actions that directly modify shared state, creating an urgent need for precise control over which transitions are permitted to occur. Existing governance mechanisms evaluate policies prior to execution or reconstruct behavior post hoc, but do not enforce admissibility at the exact moment a state transition is committed. We introduce the atomic decision boundary, a structural property of admission control systems in which the decision and the resulting state transition are jointly determined as a single indivisible step in the labeled transition system (LTS) model of execution. We distinguish two classes: atomic systems, where evaluation and transition are coupled within a single LTS step, and split evaluation systems, where they are separate transitions interleaved by environmental actions. The separation introduces an architectural gap -- the decision is evaluated in one system state; the transition fires in a potentially different one -- that no policy, regardless of sophistication, can close from within a split architecture. Under realistic concurrent environments, we prove via a constructive counterexample trace that no construction can make a split system equivalent to an atomic system with respect to admissibility. Three corollaries follow: impossibility of execution-time guarantees in split systems, insufficiency of external state enrichment, and admissibility as an execution-time rather than evaluation-time property. We further formalize the Escalate outcome -- absent from classical TOCTOU analyses -- proving that it transfers rather than eliminates the atomicity requirement: resolution is safe if and only if it is itself atomic. We classify RBAC, ABAC, OPA, Cedar, and AWS IAM as split systems and ACP as atomic, providing a structural taxonomy of existing governance mechanisms. Admissibility is a property of execution, not evaluation.

We report new results on eight problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, produced with the assistance of Bolzano, an open-source multi-agent LLM system. Bolzano orchestrates rounds of interaction between parallel prover agents and a verifier agent while maintaining a persistent knowledge base that is carried across rounds. Classified using the significance-autonomy taxonomy of Feng et al., six of the eight results reach the level of publishable research, and five of the eight were produced essentially autonomously by Bolzano. Our results provide evidence that LLMs can contribute meaningfully to mathematical research, complementing recent reports by Bubeck et al., Woodruff et al., and others.

Experience-driven self-evolution has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the autonomy of large language model agents, yet its reliance on self-curated experience introduces underexplored safety risks. In this study, we investigate how experience accumulation and utilization in self-evolving agents affect safety performance across web-based and embodied environments. Notably, experience gathered solely from benign tasks can still compromise safety in high-risk scenarios. Further analysis attributes this degradation to the execution-oriented nature of accumulated experience, which reinforces agents' tendency to act rather than refuse. In more realistic settings where agents encounter both benign and harmful tasks, refusal-related experience mitigates safety decline but induces over-refusal, revealing a fundamental safety-utility trade-off. Overall, our findings expose inherent limitations of current self-evolving agents and call for more principled strategies to ensure safe and reliable adaptation.

Agentic AI systems - systems that can pursue goals through multi-step planning and tool-mediated action with limited direct supervision - are moving from experimental prototypes to enterprise deployments. This transition introduces tensions in implementation, scaling, and governance: organizations seek scalable autonomy for knowledge and coordination work, yet must preserve accountability, safety, cost control, and responsibility as systems initiate actions, access enterprise data, and evolve through iterative updates. Building on an in-depth qualitative case of a large IT services company's 2025 development and staged rollout of an agentic system integrated with enterprise tools; we show that governance is implemented through concrete architectural and working arrangements that determine what the system is allowed to do, which tools and data it can use, how memory is handled, and how performance improvements are introduced over time. We then distill seven lessons that explain how to build effective governance into agentic AI during operationalization and scaling.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is increasingly being discussed not only as a tool, but also as a potential subject with personal and therefore moral status. In our opinion, the currently dominant alignment strategies, which focus on human control and containment of AI, therefore fall short. Building on Turing's analogy of "child machines", we are developing a vision of the possibility of autonomy-supporting parenting of AI, in which human control over a developing AGI is gradually reduced, allowing AI to become an independent, autonomous subject. Rather than viewing AGI, as is currently prevalent, as a dangerous creature that needs to be locked up and controlled, we should approach potential AGI with respect for a possible developing subject on the one hand, and with full confidence in our human capabilities on the other. Such a perspective opens up the possibility of cooperative coexistence and co-evolution between humans and AGIs. The relationship between humans and AGIs will thus have to be newly determined, which will change our self-image as humans. It will be crucial that humans not only claim control over potential AGIs, but also engage with AGIs through surprise, creativity, and other specifically human qualities, thereby offering them motivating incentives for cooperation.

Large language models are increasingly used as natural-language interfaces to enterprise software, but their direct use as system operators remains unsafe. Model errors can propagate into unauthorized actions, malformed requests, cross-workspace execution, and other costly failures. We argue this is primarily an execution architecture problem. We present a bounded-autonomy architecture in which language models may interpret intent and propose actions, but all executable behavior is constrained by typed action contracts, permission-aware capability exposure, scoped context, validation before side effects, consumer-side execution boundaries, and optional human approval. The enterprise application remains the source of truth for business logic and authorization, while the orchestration engine operates over an explicit published actions manifest. We evaluate the architecture in a deployed multi-tenant enterprise application across three conditions: manual operation, unconstrained AI with safety layers disabled, and full bounded autonomy. Across 25 scenario trials spanning seven failure families, the bounded-autonomy system completed 23 of 25 tasks with zero unsafe executions, while the unconstrained configuration completed only 17 of 25. Two wrong-entity mutations escaped all consumer-contributed layers; only disambiguation and confirmation mechanisms intercept this class. Both AI conditions delivered 13-18x speedup over manual operation. Critically, removing safety layers made the system less useful: structured validation feedback guided the model to correct outcomes in fewer turns, while the unconstrained system hallucinated success. Several safety properties are structurally enforced by code and intercepted all targeted violations regardless of model output. The result is a practical, deployed architecture for making imperfect language models operationally useful in enterprise systems.

Communication is a core enabler for multi-robot systems (MRS), providing the mechanism through which robots exchange state information, coordinate actions, and satisfy safety constraints. While many MRS autonomy algorithms assume reliable and timely message delivery, realistic wireless channels introduce delay, erasures, and ordering stalls that can degrade performance and compromise safety-critical decisions of the robot task. In this paper, we investigate how transport-layer reliability mechanisms that mitigate communication losses and delays shape the autonomy-communication loop. We show that conventional non-coded retransmission-based protocols introduce long delays that are misaligned with the timeliness requirements of MRS applications, and may render the received data irrelevant. As an alternative, we advocate for adaptive and causal network coding, which proactively injects coded redundancy to achieve the desired delay and throughput, enabling relevant data delivery for the robotic task. Specifically, this method adapts to channel conditions between robots and causally tunes the communication rates via efficient algorithms. We present two case studies: cooperative localization under delayed and lossy inter-robot communication, and a safety-critical overtaking maneuver where timely vehicle-to-vehicle message availability determines whether an ego vehicle can abort to avoid a crash. Our results demonstrate that coding-based communication significantly reduces in-order delivery stalls, keeps cooperative-localization accuracy close to the ideal baseline, and satisfies the overtaking abort deadline in 80% of the simulated runs, compared with 60% for a retransmission-based baseline. The study highlights the need to jointly design autonomy algorithms and communication mechanisms, and positions network coding as a principled tool for dependable MRS operation over wireless networks.

Mobile robots have become indispensable for exploring hostile environments, such as in space or disaster relief scenarios, but often remain limited to teleoperation by a human operator. This restricts the deployment scale and requires near-continuous low-latency communication between the operator and the robot. We present MOSAIC: a scalable autonomy framework for multi-robot scientific exploration using a unified mission abstraction based on Points of Interest (POIs) and multiple layers of autonomy, enabling supervision by a single operator. The framework dynamically allocates exploration and measurement tasks based on each robot's capabilities, leveraging team-level redundancy and specialization to enable continuous operation. We validated the framework in a space-analog field experiment emulating a lunar prospecting scenario, involving a heterogeneous team of five robots and a single operator. Despite the complete failure of one robot during the mission, the team completed 82.3% of assigned tasks at an Autonomy Ratio of 86%, while the operator workload remained at only 78.2%. These results demonstrate that the proposed framework enables robust, scalable multi-robot scientific exploration with limited operator intervention. We further derive practical lessons learned in robot interoperability, networking architecture, team composition, and operator workload management to inform future multi-robot exploration missions.

A community of researchers appears to think that a machine can be surprised and have introduced various surprise measures, principally the Shannon Surprise and the Bayesian Surprise. The questions of what constitutes a surprise and how to react to one still elicit debates. In this work, we introduce Mutual Information Surprise (MIS), a new framework that redefines surprise not as anomaly measure, but as a signal of epistemic growth. Furthermore, we develop a statistical test sequence that could trigger a surprise reaction and propose a MIS-based reaction policy that dynamically governs system behavior through sampling adjustment and process forking. Empirical evaluations -- on both synthetic domains and a dynamic pollution map estimation task -- show that a system governed by the MIS-based reaction policy significantly outperforms those under classical surprise-based approaches in stability, responsiveness, and predictive accuracy. The important implication of our new proposal is that MIS quantifies the impact of new observations on mutual information, shifts surprise from reactive to reflective, enables reflection on learning progression, and thus offers a path toward self-aware and adaptive autonomous systems. We expect the new surprise measure to play a critical role in further advancing autonomous systems on their ability to learn and adapt in a complex and dynamic environment.

Autonomy, from the Greek autos (self) and nomos (law), refers to the capacity to operate according to internal rules without external control. Autonomous vehicles (AuVs) are therefore understood as vehicular systems that perceive their environment and execute tasks with minimal human intervention, consistent with the direction indicated by the SAE levels of automated driving. However, recent research and deployments increasingly showcase vehicular capabilities that, while not contradicting autonomy, are not entailed by it, including ambiguous goal handling, purposeful social engagement, external tool use, proactive problem solving, continuous learning, and context-sensitive reasoning in unseen and ethically salient situations, enabled in part by multimodal language models. These developments reveal a gap between technical autonomy and the broader social cognitive functions required for human-centered mobility, which are more precisely captured by the notion of agency. Therefore, rather than adding increasingly elaborate modifiers to "autonomous," we introduce agentic vehicles (AgVs) and suggest that autonomy and agency are intertwined but conceptually distinct: if autonomy concerns what to do and how to do it (task executions under internal rules), agency pertains to why to do it and what else can be done (goal-directed, adaptive actions). We present autonomy and agency as orthogonal yet synergistic dimensions with co-development implications. Vehicle agency marks a novel dimension of mobility service intelligence, heralding vehicles as purposeful actors in society.

Generative models now write application code, harden and monitor it, and probe it for exploitable flaws, so that one family of models increasingly plays builder, defender and breaker at once. The prevailing view treats full autonomy as the natural end point of assistance. This article argues for a narrower and more defensible position than a blanket requirement for human oversight. We define the shared generative substrate as the set of upstream dependencies (training corpus, model family, alignment procedure, vendor, toolchain) that induce correlated errors, and we define independence as a measurable property of pairs of lifecycle roles rather than an attribute of any participant. A coincident-failure model in the tradition of Eckhardt and Lee shows why organisational independence, the proxy on which verification standards have relied, no longer implies statistical independence once roles share a substrate; it also shows that heterogeneous models, deterministic analysers and formal verification can restore independence for the fault classes they cover. What remains for humans is specific: authority over the specification against which every machine oracle is judged, accountability that current governance instruments do not permit to be delegated, and last-resort authority to halt. We translate this into an operational framework with five autonomy levels, three distinct human roles and five decision criteria (consequence, reversibility, time-criticality, verifiability and adversarial exposure), apply it to build, defend and test actions, and specify how independence and oversight effectiveness can be measured. The central claims are stated as testable hypotheses with a protocol for refuting them.