Agent Decisions

Learned world models are becoming essential to general-purpose agents: by predicting action consequences, they support planning and decision-making while reducing reliance on costly trial and error. This reliance creates a fundamental ambiguity: when a world-model-guided decision fails, the trajectory alone may not reveal whether the agent's decision rule or the world model caused the loss. We formalize this failure-attribution problem as a counterfactual decomposition of return loss and prove that its components are not identifiable from passive interaction, even for finite-horizon planners. This obstruction motivates Dual-Frontier, a learning principle that admits a world-model-guided decision only when its predicted advantage exceeds a certified bound on decision-relevant world-model error; otherwise, evidence is allocated to world-model verification. Action-conditioned value bounds and a closed-loop extension guarantee non-decreasing return for admitted decisions. Calibrated gates and simultaneous confidence sequences support adaptive evidence reuse, with sufficient and necessary verification bounds. Controlled learned-model experiments validate the predicted failure modes and certification behavior, while cross-backbone tool-use benchmarks instantiate the same verify-then-promote rule in realistic agent world-model pipelines, consistently improving decision quality and reliability.

When an agent handling a payment exception loses money, the agent-step attribution methods this paper compares against will name one of its actions. They will do so even when a settlement message was dropped and the agent never had a chance: they intervene on agent actions and do not expose infrastructure faults as intervenable variables, so every dollar they explain is charged to a decision. We take a benchmark whose fault process is explicit and replayable, decompose each episode's realised delivery schedule into named, individually repairable messages, and intervene on both the agent's choices and the infrastructure's. A telescoping identity splits any policy's loss exactly three ways: an infrastructure effect, a policy differential against the best implementable policy, and a reference-policy residual. Two of the three can be negative, so none is a share; Shapley then divides the first into signed allocations over individual messages. One result is structural and needs no corpus: an agent-only baseline identifies no infrastructure cause, because its model contains no variable that could name one. What 545 planted episodes across 3 policies measure is the size of that consequence. It misfiles 100% of infrastructure episodes and charges $114,383.40 to the agent. Repairing what it names recovers 0.0% of the available loss; repairing a minimal sufficient set recovers 100.0%. Scoring messages one at a time is not merely imprecise: 27.8% (95% CI: 23.3--32.3%) of episodes do not decompose additively. We evaluate deterministic programmatic policies rather than language-model agents, which is what makes replay exact and which limits external validity to stochastic agents. The prevalence figures are properties of this generator, not field rates.

An agent chooses an action based on her private information and a recommendation from an informed but potentially misaligned adviser. With a known probability, the adviser truthfully reports his signal; with the remaining probability, he can send any message. We characterize optimal robust decision rules that maximize the agent's worst-case expected payoff. Every optimal rule is equivalent to a trust-region policy in belief space: the adviser's reported beliefs are taken at face value if they fall within the trust region but are otherwise clipped to the trust region's boundary. We derive alignment thresholds above which advice is strictly valuable and fully characterize the solution in both binary-state and binary-action environments.

When multiple LLM agents yield conflicting answers, the decision-making process dictates whether agent diversity improves performance or merely compounds shared errors. Existing collective decision-making methods, including voting, electoral rules, and LLM judges, rely on forward reasoning: they map evidence to labels in one direction. Although these methods can combine diverse forward traces, they still aggregate estimates that share this evidence-to-label factorization and can inherit correlated errors within the forward pool. We therefore construct a reverse posterior for each instance through Bayesian backward reasoning from an explicit likelihood. The forward and reverse posteriors provide differently factorized approximations of the underlying posterior. Because estimates from different factorizations may tend to share the same error less often, we use Jensen-Shannon divergence to rank agents by cross-path consistency. This cross-path consistency signal underlies three strategies: hard selection (MinJS), soft reweighting (FwdJS), and log-linear fusion (LogLin). Evaluated on DDXPlus across five LLM backbones, our proposed strategies show consistent improvements: MinJS outperforms random selection across all backbones, FwdJS generally improves over the strongest baseline, and LogLin achieves the best performance among the evaluated methods, with its largest gains on the subset where the agents disagree. Despite its weaker standalone accuracy, the reverse posterior serves as a more useful anchor than forward-only alternatives, providing complementary information for collective decision-making. When labeled data are available, a lightweight two-stage calibration can further refine the reverse anchor and improve aggregation performance.

We placed 100 memory-equipped large language model (LLM) agents in charge of a closed, money-conserving spatial economy on real Pokhara Lakeside geography (earning wages, running businesses, setting prices) and ran this multi-agent simulation for up to 26 simulated weeks, well past the 1-2 weeks typical of agent-society studies. Across 91 validated runs (2.44M agent decisions, 21.5B tokens), the money stops moving, in a specific and measurable way. A 12x tourist demand shock raises business revenue 4.62x ($p<0.001$), which we decompose exactly into a 1.50x extensive margin (more businesses trading) and a 3.07x intensive margin (more revenue each). Monetary transmission stops there. Wages move 1.03x ($p=0.42$); 0.3% of 3,981 menu items are ever repriced ($p=0.47$). A randomized cash transfer (NPR 5,000 to 20 of 100 agents) shows the same pattern from the opposite direction: 96.7% is still held 311 pulses later, marginal propensity to consume 3-4% by two independent measures, indistinguishable from zero. The wealth distribution is consequently near-frozen at the horizon this literature uses ($\rho=0.964$ over 2 simulated weeks), but not frozen. $\rho$ falls to 0.832 at 12 weeks and 0.752 at 26, a horizon-dependence no short study can see. Matched ablations show which knob actually matters. Swapping the backing LLM moves every outcome we measure ($p=0.0039$); deleting agents' memory moves none of them detectably. A purely social tool fails 94-97% of the time across two model families, compared with ~96% success on economic tools, with no measurable shift away from it. Every headline number is verified twice, by a live validator and by an offline recomputation that reconciles each agent's wealth against its own signed transaction history, and we release the full run corpus for reanalysis.

Long-running AI agents may read state, reason, wait for tools or human approval, and perform an external action much later. The state that justified the action can change in the meantime. For example, after an agent proposes an 80 GBP refund under a limit of 100, a customer-name change affects only presentation metadata, a new limit of 90 still permits the refund, a limit of 50 invalidates it, and a refund issued by another worker must prevent a duplicate. Standard optimistic concurrency control and version checks can detect that previously read state has changed, but by themselves do not determine whether that change invalidates the pending action's justification. We call any detected version change a version conflict; when that change invalidates the action's justification, it is also a decision conflict. ATR records the explicit, executable conditions that justify a pending action and rechecks only the conditions affected by a change before releasing the external operation. It can retain the action, refresh non-decisive metadata, require replanning, or block execution; a target-side transaction or compare-and-set binds checked state to commit. Across 210,000 controlled executions over 15 mutation cases, ATR matched every developer-specified outcome with no false allows or blocks. In ten durable SQLite checkpoint/resume cells, it evaluated 0.6 conditions per change versus 6.0 for FullScan. At 4,093 recorded reads, ATR took 9.3 microseconds versus 2595.9 microseconds for FullScan. These deterministic results establish controlled feasibility, not production generality or automatic extraction of the required conditions.

A merchant's payment processor, ledger, ERP and bank feed are updated by messages that get delayed, duplicated, dropped and reordered, so for minutes at a time the four hold contradictory beliefs about the same order. An agent resolving the exception must decide whether to ship goods, re-submit a capture, refund or wait, knowing some of those cannot be undone. We present FinalityBench, an executable benchmark for that decision. It keeps a hidden canonical event log and derives each system's view from a separately faulted delivery stream, so disagreement follows from specified fault semantics rather than being authored. Grading is on executed monetary effects: an episode is scored by the merchant's terminal economic position, relative to a privileged reference told when the pending capture resolves. The corpus of 321 tasks includes 45 twin pairs (90 tasks): tasks whose four system views are identical at the decision instant, whose authoritative probes both return unknown, and whose eventual correct dispositions differ. That snapshot indistinguishability is checked under every evaluation seed rather than assumed; equivalence over all interaction traces is not claimed. Over 14,445 graded episodes from nine programmatic policies, ranking by single-task accuracy and by paired loss disagree in 7 places: a ship-on-first-sign policy is second-best by accuracy at 65.7% and worst in the suite by paired loss, because it cannot tell the two members apart. A runtime gating irreversible actions on an authoritative finality probe reaches 85.4% and, unlike every polling policy, loses nothing to pass^5; its residual loss is almost entirely one archetype, which prices finality information directly. Language models reach the same exact rate as the hand-written gate on a stratified subset, lose about twice as much money, and discover the finality-gating strategy without being told it.

AI agents increasingly gather evidence, invoke tools, apply constraints, and produce decisions that people or software may commit to action. A final output alone cannot show which evidence, tool state, rule, authorization, or action path produced it. We present DNative-Twin, a graph-native digital twin that records a committed agentic decision as a typed trajectory and re-executes its decision mechanism under declared conditions. The graph links the state observed by the agent, the path it followed, and the authority behind the resulting action. The twin synchronizes this information, replays the mechanism in isolation, and compares it under controlled changes. We instantiate the framework in enterprise decision processes using three public process logs and controlled replay suites. The experiments identify a specific failure: graph structure localizes represented changes but cannot determine the consequence of an unobserved tool state. In a three-condition controlled experiment with 300 injected instances, unresolved-divergence recall increased from 0 to 0.667 when replay-contract state was added and to 1.0 when verification results were also available; the held-out set contained no critical-class instance. Across 500--5,000 BPI 2020 cases, median end-to-end time increased from 0.794 to 8.889 seconds on the reported platform. These results separate the roles of graph structure, replay context, and verification evidence in reviewing a decision mechanism.

Large language model agents can plan, invoke tools, and modify external states, yet most systems still take an explicit user instruction as a fixed starting point. Proactive service moves the decision upstream: an agent must infer service opportunities from incomplete environmental and user signals, choose among remaining silent, asking, assisting, and acting, and account for interruption, misunderstanding, overreach, and privacy costs. This survey gives an operational definition centered on initiative and formulates the problem as a partially observable sequential decision process constrained by authorization and risk. The formulation represents timing, content, and delivery within one structured action, while making explicit the option value of waiting, the decision value of questions, and feedback-induced state changes. On this basis, we organize existing methods along one decision pipeline (state and need estimation, intervention gating, action construction, and feedback adaptation) and describe prescribed, predictive, model based, and return optimizing mechanisms as nonexclusive policy-construction components. We further normalize decision units and three-axis evidence descriptors across streaming dialogue, screen, video, software-engineering, and human-agent collaboration resources, and formalize metrics for triggering, timing, calibration, user burden, safety, and policy value. The synthesis shows why offline classification performance alone does not predict deployment benefit and why long-term memory is not a defining condition of proactivity. Reliable proactive service instead requires calibrated incremental intervention value, verifiable authorization, recoverable execution, and counterfactual evidence.

Recursive LLM agents can broaden their search by spawning specialists. Some branches later request tools that send data or deploy code. When should a branch receive authority to act? We distinguish sandbox spawning, in which external controls prevent the specified harm, from capability activation, in which a selected branch crosses an irreversible-action boundary. Progressive Risk Vesting (PRV) holds a trajectory-level risk budget in escrow and debits it as branches are activated. We prove an anytime harm bound for adaptively generated trees. Branch outcomes may be dependent, but each local certificate needs to remain valid conditional on the full pre-activation history, including the information used to select the request. When activation gates, branch charges, and compute constraints are held fixed, delayed vesting preserves every policy available under irrevocable spawn charging. Marginal risk estimates can still fail after branch selection. In a stylized branching model, trajectory harm changes as the authority reproduction number $\mathcal{R}_A$ crosses one. As local risk $p$ approaches zero, trajectory harm is proportional to $p$ below criticality, proportional to $\sqrt{p}$ at criticality, and retains a positive floor above it. A finite-type occupancy model yields risk and compute shadow prices. For nested fanout modes with decreasing marginal value per unit risk, these prices produce a threshold rule. Branching calculations and a split-sample experiment illustrate the results. These synthetic studies do not estimate safety in deployed agents. The analysis suggests a design rule: search broadly in the sandbox and grant recursive authority sparingly, with an explicit risk charge.

Agent evaluations often use one benchmark to choose a workflow and then search for task types where its advantage weakens, so both conclusions are selected from the same data. We introduce Selection-Aware Semantic Stress Testing (\SASST{}), which learns a task reweighting from pre-execution features on discovery tasks and evaluates the same paired comparison on separate confirmation tasks. The protocol checks support and stability, uses joint bounds for all planned claims, and can return no claim. We prove conditional asymptotic validity under stated cluster assumptions. A forty-cluster audit finds Gaussian undercoverage and conservative Bonferroni $t$ bounds. In one 480-episode $τ$-bench study, a $3.75$ point discovery gain vanished on confirmation. A second-model study likewise confirmed neither a workflow benefit nor a stable stress rule.

Early failure prediction is important for long-horizon agents, as it enables timely intervention and can reduce inference and tool-use costs. Uncertainty quantification, such as verbal confidence and perplexity, offers a promising approach to detecting agent failures; however, it has not been explored whether these signals retain their discriminative power during the intermediate stages of long-horizon execution. We evaluate mainstream uncertainty signals on deep-research tasks and find that verbal confidence reliably distinguishes failures at trajectory completion, achieving a mean AUROC of 0.85, whereas all evaluated signals offer limited predictive value earlier in execution, with none exceeding a mean AUROC of 0.60 at 50% trajectory progress. We identify an underlying mechanism explaining this gap: path switching, where agents frequently abandon their current search direction in-trajectory, breaking the link between early signal and final outcome. These findings challenge the assumption that intermediate uncertainty can reliably guide early intervention. They also motivate a practical recommendation for agent harnesses in deep-research settings: use final-step confidence to decide whether to restart, an approach that our experiments find more effective than in-trajectory intervention.

Organizational decisions are co-created while evidence, constraints, and human priorities continue to evolve. In conventional transcript-based multi-agent systems, humans typically provide an initial problem, agents deliberate internally, and the system returns a final response. BoardroomAI instead treats the human as a persistent participant who can intervene by challenging assumptions, modifying constraints, changing priorities, introducing evidence, or redirecting the decision process. We operationalize this human--agent coexistence through four components: (i) a typed decision graph representing evidence, assumptions, constraints, claims, objections, alternatives, risks, decisions, semantic dependencies, and specialist responsibility; (ii) an intervention compiler that converts confirmed human actions into explicit graph updates; (iii) dependency-aware propagation that identifies affected subgraphs, preserves unaffected artifacts, and selectively reactivates relevant specialists; and (iv) an evaluation framework measuring intervention impact, repair coverage, preservation, recomputation, and decision validity. Across 600 generated decision-DAG interventions, propagation matched exhaustive impact computation while inspecting only 14.59% of nodes. In a 12-case exploratory pilot, selective repair recomputed 62.11% of canonical nodes, preserved all gold-unaffected nodes, and produced valid updated decisions in six cases while abstaining in the remaining six. These abstentions show that correct intervention routing may still provide insufficient context for synthesis, motivating a \emph{decision-sufficient context closure} for human-steered multi-agent deliberation. All results are synthetic and prototype-level.

Multi-step language-model agents repeatedly process growing interaction histories, leading to substantial context costs. Vision--text compression reduces these costs by rendering history as images, but the resulting modality shift creates a marked capability gap. Through controlled evaluations of history recovery, matched-state decisions, and complete trajectories, we show that this gap cannot be explained by OCR quality alone. Visual-history agents exhibit systematic drift in action selection, query formulation, stopping, and evidence use, revealing an agentic policy gap. We introduce \textbf{CAPS}, a two-stage \textbf{C}ross-modal \textbf{A}gentic \textbf{P}olicy \textbf{S}elf-distillation framework that uses the same model's stronger text-history policy to supervise its visual-history counterpart. Offline trajectory self-distillation transfers successful text-policy behavior to visual-history inputs, while online policy self-distillation provides dense supervision on states visited by the visual-history policy during reinforcement learning. On SearchQA, CAPS improves over AgentOCR by 5.0% and 3.4% with 3B and 7B backbones, respectively. On full-history ALFWorld, the corresponding gains are 15.6% and 14.5%. Across settings, CAPS reduces average memory-context cost by up to 63.3% and peak cost by up to 83.4% relative to matched text-history policies. These results show that explicit cross-modal policy self-distillation can preserve agent capability under vision--text compression. Our code will be made publicly available in a future release.

Perception in biological systems is inherently noisy, requiring organisms to make decisions under uncertainty where misclassification can be costly or fatal. We present an Artificial Life predator-prey model of foraging under noisy perception, and compare agent performance when using various policies that take into account their noisy predictions. Through controlled experiments under both symmetric and asymmetric perceptual noise, we show that blindly trusting perceptual labels leads to catastrophic failure as noise increases, while uncertainty-aware strategies significantly improve survival and reduce fatal errors. We further observe qualitative regime shifts in behaviour, with agents transitioning from exploratory to conservative strategies as uncertainty increases. Our model links risk-sensitive foraging, ecological information use, and Artificial Life by showing that explicit information gathering can improve robustness when perception is unreliable. These results highlight the importance of uncertainty-aware decision-making and provide an interpretable artificial life analogue to robust learning with noisy labels.

With the growing adoption of artificial intelligence in high-stakes decision-making, identifying the causes of outcomes--particularly failures--and determining who is responsible has become a critical concern. In this work, we examine how well formal definitions of \textit{responsibility attribution}, grounded in the framework of \textit{actual causality}, align with human judgments of responsibility. To this end, we conduct a large-scale survey to elicit human judgments of responsibility in multi-agent sequential decision-making scenarios, using a modified version of the card game Goofspiel. We evaluate multiple responsibility attribution methods, assess their alignment with human judgments about responsibility, and identify factors that significantly shape responsibility judgments. While no single responsibility attribution method consistently aligns with human responses, our findings highlight key factors that influence human responsibility judgments, including agent-specific biases and amount of information available to agents during decision-making.

Clinical decision support is moving toward committees of language-model agents deliberating on a shared workspace. We ask whether such committees can be gamed by shortcuts, cues a benchmark rewards but a clinician would ignore. Across seven cohorts on six public datasets spanning text (MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, MIMIC-CXR reports), imaging (NIH ChestX-ray14, MIMIC-CXR-JPG, CheXpert) and tabular ICU records (SUPPORT2), Gemini committees resist these cues in isolation (flip 5-16%), yet a socially plausible shortcut spreads: when two peers assert the same wrong answer, the holdout under test adopts it in 38% of cases, as does a false "pre-screen" system flag, on both capability tiers. Of three oversight agents, a gate cannot separate adoption from honest agreement (false-positive rate 100%); a same-lineage judge reading only the transcript flags adoption on text (precision 100%, recall 93%) but collapses onto the gate in imaging; a referee that privately re-queries the holdout transfers to imaging (77-88% precision, 13-21% false-positive rate). Tripling a cue's visual salience does not move contagion, whereas a second peer voice raises it by half again. Gaming a hidden rubric is near-silent: only 1/10 text and 1/134 imaging drifters name the rubric they moved toward. What games a committee is social plausibility, and only a referee independent of self-report catches it. Code: https://github.com/criticaldata/benchmaxxing

Clinical development is sequential decision-making under uncertainty, where a sponsor must plan a portfolio of experiments from heterogeneous evidence. We study this setting by framing oncology clinical development as an offline decision-making problem in which an agent predicts the next six-month trial portfolio of an oncology drug program from information available at the decision date. To support this, we construct a temporal dataset that combines 31.7k heterogeneous public data records, including trial registries, regulatory reviews, sponsor filings, utilization data, and epidemiology, into 881 offline decision episodes across 45 historical programs. We compare four offline objectives: behavioral cloning, reward-weighted behavioral cloning, learned-reward training, and value-based implicit Q-learning against four frontier LLM agents that share a common date-gated retrieval scaffold across held-out drug, sponsor, drug-class, and temporal splits. Models trained offline outperform the non-fine-tuned baselines, particularly in the post-August 2025 contamination-clean holdout. Reward-weighted behavioral cloning performs the best, obtaining 46.2% indication F1 and 14.2% strict F1 against 25.0% and 2.1%, respectively, for the best-performing tool agent on each metric. These results suggest that structured offline learning can teach agents to plan clinical experiments.

Programmable-payment protocols such as x402 enable per-request micropayments, but they do not determine which payable service an autonomous agent should buy under a finite wallet. We formulate this buyer-side problem as agent-native payment decision-making: contextual provider selection under wallet pressure, chosen-only paid feedback, and changing market conditions. We propose 402Pilot, a protocol-agnostic buyer-side decision layer between autonomous agents and payment execution that implements purchasing policies for selecting among payable providers. We instantiate it with PA-DCT, a payment-aware discounted contextual Thompson-sampling policy that adapts purchasing decisions under wallet pressure while learning from post-payment feedback. To evaluate buyer-side payment policies, we introduce 402Pilot-Bench, a frozen-replay benchmark spanning 823 tasks, five heterogeneous provider pipelines, and three market regimes, each evaluated over 30 paired seeds. PA-DCT achieves the strongest fixed-wallet adaptive trade-off among non-oracle policies: it maintains competitive service quality while spending only 39 to 43 percent of the wallet and reallocates spending as market conditions change. It attains the best non-oracle PA-gap/T under the price shock and the best mean and worst-case ranks across the nine scenario-metric combinations of quality, ROI, and PA-gap/T. Comparisons with learning baselines and component ablations further support the effectiveness and design of the proposed decision policy. These results suggest that programmable payment must be complemented by buyer-side decision-making capable of learning service value and adapting purchasing decisions accordingly.

AI agents increasingly perform open-ended tasks in settings where their conclusions can guide consequential decisions. We provide evidence that AI agents draw different conclusions from identical numerical data when the substantive framing changes. We demonstrate this behavior in high-stakes domains in medicine, election forensics, and geopolitical forecasting by holding the evidence fixed while changing the scenario in which the evidence appears. Across twelve agent-domain comparisons, agents' conclusions are strongly influenced by their prior beliefs. They are more likely to reach an affirmative conclusion when it is framed around a proposition they already regard as likely, while the reverse holds when the framing conflicts with their prior. The framing also changes how some agents work: they search more extensively, choose different analytical specifications, and evaluate the same evidence differently. These results identify a particular risk of delegating decision-making to AI agents, as their decisions may depend on prior beliefs that are neither specified in the task nor visible in the decision record.

Computer-use agents often fail on transient GUI events because they produce the correct action only after the relevant window has already closed. We identify the main cause as expensive autoregressive decoding on the decision-time critical path. We propose Adaptive Anticipatory Policy Trees (AAPT), which eliminates this delay without modifying the underlying model. During idle screen periods, the same frozen multimodal model constructs a bounded conditional policy tree with observable guards, pre-authorized actions, and branch-specific deadlines. The tree is sized to cover the model's own decoding latency. When an event occurs, a lightweight observer matches change-gated frames to a prepared branch and immediately executes the corresponding action without generating new text. In paired trials with pre-registered endpoints and exact McNemar tests, AAPT improves the success rate from 0.50 to 0.79 within a contested decision window ($p=1.8\times10^{-3}$), while producing no incorrect actions. Both open-loop and predict-and-replan baselines achieve zero success because they still decode during execution. A preparation-time sweep shows that the gain emerges where the latency-based tree-sizing rule predicts, and ablations reveal three key requirements: fast observer decoding, valid tree planning, and accurate branch routing. A pre-registered oracle probe rejects our initial hypothesis and instead points to branch routing as the causal bottleneck. We further reproduce the effect on an independent general-purpose multimodal model over 126 paired trials ($p=4.9\times10^{-13}$). On an external benchmark, AAPT matches the overall performance of a reactive baseline, although the two methods exhibit complementary strengths. Together, these results suggest that AAPT performs best when candidate actions can be enumerated in advance, whereas reactive execution remains stronger when they cannot.

A central challenge in interpreting learned decision-making systems is to determine whether their internal representations contain concepts that help explain their behavior. We report interpretability experiments for a tokenized autoregressive Transformer agent in the Game of Hidden Rules (GOHR). We focus on a compact two-rule task in which both hidden rules map object shapes to target buckets, but with different permutations. The policy is trained on episodes sampled from these two hidden rules and then evaluated with fixed weights. It is never given a rule label and does not use an explicit rule classifier; any rule information must be inferred implicitly from interaction history. In this setting, the correct rule is not identifiable before the agent tries an informative move and observes accept/reject feedback. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) trained on the agent's decision-token embeddings recover this structure. When held-out decisions are labeled by simple concepts such as the chosen shape or bucket, SAE dimensions that are highly selective for a concept cover most decisions where that concept is present. Individual SAE dimensions also correspond to interpretable strategies such as probing one rule hypothesis and switching after negative feedback.

Agentic commerce extends agentic shopping into software agents that interpret policy, prepare checkout, generate transaction-facing language, and act under delegated payment authority. Protocols standardize external exchanges, but merchants still need one authoritative representation of commercial eligibility, actor authority, checkout validity, payment dispatch, generated claims, and evidence. This design-science study presents a protocol-agnostic architecture built around a canonical envelope, protected dependency and result hashes, Ed25519 or HMAC authentication, live-request rebinding, a seven-axis generated-claim gate, execution-time dependency revalidation, and eleven semantic invariants. Evaluation used an open-source JavaScript implementation, eight deterministic ecommerce scenarios, and five controlled ablations. Seven initially valid actions were permitted. After protected state changed, none could proceed without a fresh decision; a hostile-accessor case also remained blocked. Action status was consistent across configured surface-bound envelopes, and each scenario contained the three protected hashes and its targeted dependency reference. Each ablation produced the predicted unsafe regression when one safeguard was bypassed, while the protected path contained the same failure. The hostile accessor was read once, and the suite passed 66/66 tests, schema validation, and committed examples. Results support protected-dependency change detection, bounded outcome derivation, stale-decision prevention, surface-bound status consistency, refusal propagation, and verified-state identity under synthetic fixtures, but do not establish rule completeness, production security, performance, legal compliance, live interoperability, population error rates, or independent replication.

Agentic AI is shifting online shopping from search toward delegated purchasing, where autonomous buying agents monitor markets and decide when to buy on a consumer's behalf. We study the design of such strategic buying agents, which must decide when to purchase within a finite shopping window, translating price observations, the remaining time horizon, and beliefs about future price changes into a purchase policy. We formulate this problem across three information regimes: stationary, Bayesian, and robust, and treat the resulting optimal policies as a policy menu for implementation. In the stationary regime, price adjustments follow a Poisson arrival process with a known post-adjustment price distribution; the optimal policy is a dynamic purchase-threshold rule, with the threshold governed by an ordinary differential equation. In the Bayesian regime, the adjustment intensity is known, but the price-adjustment distribution is uncertain; the optimal rule remains threshold-based, now depending on posterior beliefs, and we bound the value of knowing the true distribution. In the robust regime, the agent has only price bounds and seeks worst-case protection; randomized threshold policies achieve optimal competitive-ratio and minimax-regret guarantees. We evaluate the proposed policies on Amazon price histories from Keepa (367 items, 48,933 timestamped observations) and examine their integration into language-model buying agents. The stationary and Bayesian policies perform competitively on mean normalized consumer surplus despite their stylized assumptions, while the robust policy performs best at the distribution's 10th percentile. Results suggest language models are better suited to selecting among regimes and calibration samples than to making buy-or-wait decisions directly.

Conversational agents are increasingly embedded in human collaborative work, yet they remain fundamentally passive and reactive: they respond to explicit user requests rather than proactively recognizing moments when a team would benefit from timely intervention as human collaborators often do. This reactive design substantially limits the use of agents as active participants in multi-user collaboration, where disagreements, ambiguous goals, forgotten constraints, underspecified plans, discussion loops, and imbalanced participation can gradually undermine group progress. To move agents from passive assistants toward active participants in multi-user collaboration, we introduce ProACT, a breakdown-aware agent framework grounded in theories of common ground, collaborative planning, and coordination work. ProACT observes the speaker-attributed conversation history, determines whether the current turn contains a collaboration breakdown requiring intervention, decides whether the agent should stay silent or speak, and, when speaking is needed, routes the case to a targeted collaboration skill. We further introduce the first multi-user collaboration benchmark for evaluating proactive agents across project planning, product design, research collaboration, logistics, education, and resource-constrained decision making. Across 3,244 turn-level examples and five LLM backbones, ProACT consistently improves collaborative appropriateness, non-interruptiveness, conciseness, and judged intervention quality over direct chat.

LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks. However, existing safety testing targets expert-designed safety violations, and the corresponding outcomes are evaluated by hard-coded rules, making them costly to extend as agents evolve. To this end, we present Vera, an end-to-end automated safety testing framework that instantiates software engineering testing principles for non-deterministic agents through a three-stage, self-reinforcing pipeline. First, a literature-driven exploration continuously discovers and structures emerging risks into taxonomies of safety risks, attack methods, and tool execution environments. Second, combinatorial composition across taxonomy dimensions produces executable safety cases, each specifying a concrete safety goal, a programmatically constructed initial state, and a deterministic verification predicate grounded in observable artifacts. Third, adaptive execution runs heterogeneous agents in isolated sandboxes where a control agent steers multi-turn interaction based on runtime observations, while evidence-grounded verifiers judge outcomes from environment state and tool-call evidence rather than model self-report. We evaluate Vera on four production agent frameworks (OpenClaw, Hermes, Codex, Claude Code), revealing substantial safety weaknesses, with average attack success rates reaching 93.9% under multi-channel attacks; we also release Vera-Bench, comprising 1600 executable safety cases spanning 124 risk categories across three execution settings. These results indicate that modular, executable testing infrastructure is essential for rigorous and maintainable safety evaluation of rapidly evolving agentic systems at scale. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/Yunhao-Feng/Vera.

Autonomous customer-service agents are shifting from conversational interfaces toward operational execution roles: they retrieve firm records, apply service policies, and execute backend writes such as refunds, cancellations, exchanges, order modifications, and reservation changes. This shift creates a service-control problem: firms must keep routine service fast and low-friction while preventing operational errors on requests where customer instructions, policy constraints, firm records, and backend writes interact. We propose a difficulty-routed service-control architecture that asks when service agents should reconsider before acting. A lightweight router keeps routine sessions on a low-cost baseline path and routes operationally coupled sessions to an escalated workflow. The escalated path uses conflict-aware communication and write-triggered reconsideration to concentrate deliberation and safeguards before consequential backend writes, rather than applying additional control uniformly across all service sessions. We evaluate the architecture on human-verified retail and airline tasks from $τ^{2}$-bench. In retail, the method improves reliability consistently on service requests with operational conflict. Routing evidence shows that stronger control is directed toward conflicted requests rather than broadly applied to routine ones. Dialogue and tool-use profiles suggest that gains do not come from indiscriminate interaction expansion or broader tool chains; instead, added turns and tool calls support evidence gathering, write separation, and pre-write reconsideration. Case-level evidence shows that the escalated workflow preserves fallback plans, binds retrieved records to the correct action, sequences writes, and decomposes multi-entity requests. Airline results extend the same service-control logic to reservation operations.

We introduce inquisitive action logic, InqAL, a multi-agent modal logic for reasoning about action. While traditional approaches focus on what properties of the outcome an agent can force, InqAL also captures what aspects of the outcome an agent determines through their actions. As we argue, such claims of agentive determination are naturally analyzed as modal claims involving questions. Technically, InqAL is a multi-agent extension of inquisitive neighborhood logic based on concurrent game structures. With respect to statements, it is expressively equivalent to the individual-agent fragment of the socially friendly coalition logic recently proposed by Goranko and Enqvist. We present an axiomatization of InqAL and prove completeness and decidability via the finite model property. Along the way, we establish a representation theorem for actual effectivity functions, associating to an agent the sets of outcomes corresponding to their possible actions; we give exact conditions under which a multi-agent neighborhood frame arises from a concurrent game structure.

Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review. We formulate this as budgeted act-or-defer decision making. At each round, the system maps the debate prefix to a low-dimensional state, computes a $k$-nearest-neighbor lower confidence bound on state-conditional correctness using calibration data, and acts only when the bound exceeds a user-specified reliability threshold. The certificate controls wrong actions through the decomposition $β= δ+ α+ \varepsilon_{\mathrm{act}}$, separating calibration failure, residual action risk, and representation gap. The guarantee is conditional, not distribution-free: it relies on a valid local bias envelope and an action-region representation-gap bound, and each assumption is paired with falsification-style diagnostics. Because the same absolute wrong-action budget has different meanings across tasks of different difficulty, we set budgets relative to each task's final-round error using training data only, and evaluate safety by normalized budget usage $\mathrm{WA}/β$. On six benchmarks against nine baselines, the method uses 9--12% of the pre-declared budget on activated datasets, reaching up to 84% automation and 96% acted-on accuracy; on stress-test datasets, it defers rather than forcing unreliable automation. Rather than relying on per-task post-hoc threshold search, the method prospectively converts a user-declared wrong-action budget into an auditable act-or-defer operating point before deployment, under explicitly stated assumptions.

We introduce the process harness, a new mechanism for uplifting legacy workflows into Agentic Business Process Management (Agentic BPM) without replacing the underlying workflow engine. A process harness places a policy-governed agentic layer around a deterministic workflow engine, intercepting designated control points to contribute reasoning, adaptation, and oversight while the engine retains structural authority over the process. To define the process harness rigorously, we develop the Task-Decision-Flow (TDF) model, specifying both its data schema and its execution semantics. TDF decomposes LLM reasoning across three policy-governed agent types: a TaskAgent for knowledge-intensive task execution, a DecisionAgent for per-case gateway routing, and a FlowAgent that governs runtime flow adaptation through a principled hook mechanism. Each agent reasons within an explicit policy drawn from the process FRAME, the aggregate policy set governing all LLM calls in the system. We then present CUGA FLO as the design and implementation realization of the TDF model, and demonstrate it on a loan approval workflow that exercises all three agent types and hook-driven regulatory override. The process harness uniquely reconciles imperative requirements, realized through deterministic workflow execution that enforces structural compliance, with normative requirements, realized through policy-framed agentic autonomy invoked at designated control points wherever the process demands it.

No single market strategy always wins: momentum, mean reversion, risk control,and event-driven rules can each succeed or fail as market conditions change.Rather than asking large language models to directly generate market actions,we study an executable decision paradigm where an agent selects from a library of programmatic strategies, each implemented as a code module mapping market observations to actions.We propose \textbf{MetaPS}, a simulation-guided framework for adaptive programmatic strategy selection. MetaPS rolls out candidate strategies in simulated or backtested markets, identifies states where particular strategies lead to better future outcomes, and converts these state--strategy pairs into supervised fine-tuning data. During inference, the simulator is no longer queried: MetaPS observes only the current market state and candidate strategy context, selects a suitable strategy program, and the selected program produces the final action. Experiments on multi-stock trading and a controlled goods-exchange sandbox show that MetaPS consistently improves across model scales from 0.8B to 9B parameters. It outperforms fixed-strategy baselines, direct decision-making agents, and prompted API-based LLM agents; in several settings, compact fine-tuned models even surpass stronger API models. These results demonstrate that market simulations can provide scalable and targeted supervision for learning adaptive, interpretable, and executable strategy selection.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have demonstrated great potential in solving tasks with execution complexity, by distributing subtasks across cooperative agents. However, this divide-and-conquer paradigm falls short on decision-making tasks that are also prevalent in the real world. These tasks require simultaneous reasoning from the stances of all involved stakeholders whose decisions are mutually dependent and thus cannot be solved in isolation. We characterize this challenge as stance entanglement, a form of decision complexity distinct from execution complexity. To address it, we propose Multi-Agent Fictitious Play (MAFP), a novel MAS paradigm that represents stakeholder stances as agents and formulates decision-making as an equilibrium-seeking process. Built on the game-theoretic principle of fictitious play, MAFP iteratively updates each agent's decision by best responding to the empirical mixture of other agents' past decisions. This enables agents to expose and address one another's weaknesses, progressively improving decision quality and robustness. We evaluate MAFP on challenging decision-making tasks that test the capability of deciding strategies for competitive scenarios prior to acting. MAFP outperforms both single-round and multi-round baselines on two complementary metrics, tournament strength and robustness, demonstrating its effectiveness in addressing stance entanglement.

Modern decision systems increasingly rely on learned components whose outputs may be confident yet wrong, exposing downstream actions to costly errors. We introduce Risk-Aware Causal Gating (RACG), a framework that decides whether to act on, defer, or abstain from a model's prediction by combining causal effect estimation with calibrated risk control. RACG models the causal pathway from candidate actions to outcomes and gates each decision according to an estimated counterfactual risk rather than raw predictive confidence. To make gating reliable, we derive distribution-free bounds on the probability of acting under high-risk conditions and show how these bounds translate into operating thresholds that satisfy user-specified safety constraints. We further propose an adaptive gating policy that adjusts to distribution shift by monitoring discrepancies between predicted and realized outcomes, tightening the gate when causal assumptions appear violated. Across simulated interventions and real-world decision benchmarks, RACG reduces high-cost errors substantially while preserving most of the utility of an ungated policy, and it outperforms confidence-based and selective-prediction baselines at matched abstention rates. Our results indicate that explicitly separating causal risk from predictive uncertainty yields decision systems that are both safer and more transparent, offering a principled mechanism for trustworthy automation in high-stakes settings.

This paper examines trade-offs between AI safety and well-being relative to (i) one of the most promising methods for finetuning super-capable AIs, 'Constitutional AI', and (ii) one of the most influential approaches to understanding complex ethical decision making and the conditions for the well-being of rational agents, 'Virtue Ethics'. We finetune various models using a 'Virtuous agent' constitution, a 'Subordinate agent' constitution, and a 'Generic agent' constitution, and evaluate them on 'general safety' (toxic behaviors, misinformation, etc.) and also on their willingness to endorse a wide-range of behaviors that, if adopted by a super-powerful AI, would significantly increase the level of existential risk for humanity. Our results suggest that there is a trade-off between reducing existential risk and reinforcing the beliefs and dispositions that would be conducive to an AI agent's well-being. They also suggest that there is a trade-off between existential risk and general safety: if we finetune an AI to adopt beliefs and dispositions that substantially reduce its existential risk -- by shaping the AI to be systematically subordinate to external human authorities -- we thereby increase the likelihood that a human user can deliberately induce the AI to engage in various kinds of generally unsafe behaviors.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks once reserved for trained researchers, including hypothesis generation, specification choice, and drafting conclusions. We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines. We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation. In a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets, an unconstrained multi-agent baseline produced critical failures in 72% of runs. Using the same underlying model, the same agent decomposition, and identical prompts for the shared reasoning agents, HLER reduced the failure rate to 16% by imposing three architectural commitments: LLMs reason but do not execute data work, data and estimation are handled deterministically, and three human decision gates bind the workflow. Fisher's exact test rejects equality of failure rates at p<0.001. Reliability gains were largest on the least publicly represented dataset, a Qing-dynasty population register, consistent with a task-based production model with Frechet-distributed output quality. An 80-run ablation suggests that deterministic computation and human gates contribute independently, with exploratory evidence of complementarity. We interpret HLER as a research harness rather than an autonomous AI scientist: it sharply reduces failures, makes residual weaknesses more visible, and prevents unreliable claims from being advanced as publication-ready outputs.

Traditionally, decision support studies how humans use machine learning models to make better decisions. In modern agentic systems, this division of roles is increasingly reversed: AI agents act on behalf of users, while humans and tools becomes support mechanisms around them. This role reversal brings reliability concerns to the forefront, since agentic errors can be consequential and agent behavior must remain aligned with human goals and constraints. Departing from the classical view of decision support, we revisit its two basic principles, the cost--value tradeoff of seeking support and the role of uncertainty quantification, in a setting where AI agents are the central actors. We propose a framework for strategic decision support for AI agents through an optimization problem that minimizes support usage subject to controlling a counterfactual missed-support error: the probability that the agent acts alone on instances where support would have materially improved its output. At the population level, we show that the optimal policy is a threshold rule on the value of support. Building on this structure, we develop an online algorithm that adaptively thresholds such a score and uses randomized exploration to control missed-support error without distributional assumptions. We further introduce a calibration-on-the-fly method that reduces unnecessary support calls online. We instantiate this framework across diverse scenarios, including information gathering, human--AI collaboration, and tool use, showing how each can be modeled through the same strategic decision-support lens. Experiments across these settings show that our method reliably controls the target error while substantially reducing support usage in practice.

A financial agent can repeat a decision while changing the work behind it. DFAH-Bench operationalizes the Determinism--Faithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), pairing decision agreement with tool-path agreement on the same qualified replays, then extends that qualification principle to evidence, authorization, execution and task outcomes. Retrospective and prospective replay analyses expose process variation behind stable decisions. Across 570 eligible prospective episodes, decision agreement is 94.2-95.1%, while agreement on ordered tools, arguments and results is 45.0-51.5%; one stratum falls one group below its prespecified coverage minimum. A separate capture diagnostic shows that systematic omissions can preserve perfect replay agreement. Using the $τ$-Knowledge banking environment, we retain 1,080 scheduled episodes and 1,033 known native outcomes across separate cohorts with open-weight and frontier generators. Missing outcomes prevented the planned tests, so comparisons are descriptive. On the primary schedule, structural checks alone yield more successes than either gate-and-recovery bundle. The typed-choice bundle has lower mean episode cost than the generative bundle on complete task pairs, but produces fewer successes under every assignment of unknown outcomes. Input limits and recovery behavior materially shape these results. Fixed-state probes reveal higher decision agreement alongside lower agreement with constructed policy labels, and separately expose sensitivity to retained generator rationale in a selected authorization case. Together, the findings connect replay observability to evidence, authorization, completion and cost: evidence sufficiency needs direct assessment alongside repeatability.

Modelling individual decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks is crucial for understanding behavioural dynamics and informing effective public health interventions. Prior work has shown that large language models can simulate realistic human behaviour by generating agent decisions based on demographic prompts and situational context. We build on this foundation with a spatially grounded, agent-based simulation framework that integrates LLM-generated decisions about self-reported influenza-like illness into a census-based synthetic population of agents. Location is treated as a central feature: agents are assigned to spatial units within cities, capturing the spatial distributions of different demographic groups using real-world census data and enabling geographically diverse behavioural modelling. We implement and compare three decision scenarios, independent reasoning, household influence, and message framing, and simulate self-reporting outcomes in San Francisco and Atlanta. Results reveal that income and education are the dominant drivers of reporting rate variation, with smaller but consistent effects from geography, LLM model choice, and message framing. Our framework generates synthetic data that captures both social and geographic heterogeneity, supporting spatial epidemiological modelling and bias-aware behavioural analysis.

Agent-runtime systems emit traces, ledgers, provenance graphs, policy logs, delegation tokens, cache events, and tool-firewall records, but those containers do not necessarily answer governance questions about a specific decision. DEMM-Bench is a cross-regime benchmark for agent-runtime governance-evidence sufficiency, grounded in the Decision Evidence Maturity Model (DEMM): it measures whether records across eight evidence regimes are sufficient to reconstruct decision-level properties rather than merely present. The benchmark normalizes the regimes through adapters, asks property questions over actor, authority, action, policy, decision basis, resource touch, lifecycle context, and verification strength, and applies eight deterministic degradation conditions. Across 64 manuscript cases, trace-present and schema-present baselines overclaim on 75% of cases, ledger-present overclaims on 50%, and the redacted property-level candidate scorer has zero overclaim with 56.25% mean Property Sufficiency Accuracy. The deposited package provides the 64-case dataset, construction-oracle labels, baselines, and adapters, supporting reproducible evaluation of decision-evidence maturity across heterogeneous agent-runtime evidence substrates.

Agent benchmarks increasingly record rich interaction trajectories, yet evaluation often reduces each rollout to a pass rate or reward score. We introduce TraceGraph, a graph-based framework that turns released multi-model agent trajectories into shared decision landscapes. For each task, TraceGraph builds a graph over observable action-observation states from pooled rollouts before model identity is introduced. It then overlays outcome-informed productive cores and trap regions, and summarizes each rollout with three events: Access, Trap exposure, and Repair. Across trajectories spanning five benchmark splits, TraceGraph profiles reveal navigation differences hidden by aggregate scores and show that splits differ in whether they reward avoiding traps or recovering from them. The same TraceGraph landscape also motivates a trap-aware recovery pipeline for SWE-bench: aruntime detector fires on states matching historical trap regions, then lightweight continuation policies are evaluated from the same prefix. On fired states, the best pooled single-factor policy raises official resolved rate from 40.4% to 43.5% on the per-provider fired subset and from 41.0% to 44.8% on common-fired instances, with provider-specific active components. Overall, TraceGraph provides a process vocabulary for asking what agent benchmarks test, where models diverge on a shared landscape, and how failure regions can guide downstream improvement.

Multi-agent LLM decision systems for portfolio management still lack a principled way to assign credit across specialist agents, remain vulnerable to cold-start dominance under regime shifts, and offer limited transparency into how final allocations are formed. We propose Market Regime Council (MRC), a cooperative multi-agent decision system that computes exact Shapley credits across all single, pairwise, and Grand-coalition outputs for online agent weighting. Instantiated with N=3 specialist agents, at each trading period, MRC recomputes coalition-based Shapley weights from exponentially weighted performance histories, uses a Bayesian adaptive mixture to stabilize early periods, applies regime-dependent multipliers to adjust agent authority, and records each rebalance through a five-layer causal trace. Over 1,037 trading days across 13 crypto assets and five seeds, MRC achieves a Sharpe ratio of 1.51 and a cumulative return of 440.1%, ranking first on CR, SR, and IR among active baselines and attaining the lowest MDD among active methods. Ablation results show that the gains come from Shapley-weighted integration across coalition outputs rather than from any single stage in isolation. Code and demo data are included in the supplementary material.

Classical reinforcement learning assumes the agent interacts with a fixed environment whose behavior does not depend on the agent's policy. This assumption breaks down in non-realizable settings where other actors might anticipate the agent's behavior, including environments crucial to AI safety, where the agent interacts with predictors, humans, other AI agents, and institutions. In such settings, the agent's model class fails to capture the world in which it operates. Under such misspecification, classical Bayesian methods can produce confidently wrong posteriors, unreliable decisions, and unbounded regret, as realizability fails to obtain. Infra-Bayesianism is a decision-theoretic framework that addresses these failures by distinguishing ordinary probabilistic uncertainty, where priors can be reasonably chosen, from Knightian uncertainty, where no grounds exist for the construction of such a prior. It does so by evaluating actions on their worst-case outcomes, rather than from posterior expectations or weighted averaging. We present the first proof-of-concept implementation of an infra-Bayesian reinforcement learning architecture for finite-outcome stateless decision problems. Our agent maintains a set of imprecise hypotheses, updates them using infra-Bayesian conditioning, and selects actions by maximizing worst-case expected value. We apply this implementation of the infra-Bayesian maximin decision process to an environment with Knightian uncertainty, and demonstrate a lower worst-case regret as compared to classical reinforcement learning agents. We also investigate Newcomb's problem and show that the infra-Bayesian agent picks the optimal strategy, outperforming classical decision theory agents. Our results provide a step towards reinforcement learning agents that remain robust under model misspecification and policy-dependent uncertainty.

Making high-stakes personal decisions involves cognitive, emotional, and intuitive processes, and individuals differ in how they allocate attention across these modes. Integration of these processes has shown to benefit decision making. Yet, most current decision-support systems focus primarily on supporting cognitive aspects, rather than adapting to the individual's thinking profile to support integration of different types of thoughts. In this study, we investigate an agent designed to encourage integration by adapting to the individual user's thought patterns. We explore its effects on participants' perceptions of the agent and their reflective behavior, in comparison with unaided pre-reflection and a baseline agent. In a between-subjects study (N = 128), our agent, which fostered broad and elaborated thinking, enabled more personalized reflective trajectories, elicited more integrative reflective language, and was perceived as providing stronger support for holistic reflection. In contrast, the baseline agent produced homogenized profiles dominated by cognitive language across participants.

We introduce DecisionBench, a benchmark substrate for emergent delegation in long-horizon agentic workflows. The substrate fixes a task suite (GAIA, tau-bench, BFCL multi-turn), a peer-model pool (11 models, 7 vendor families), a delegation interface (call_model plus an optional read_profile channel), a deterministic skill-annotation layer, and a multi-axis metric suite covering quality, cost, latency, delegation rate, routing fidelity-at-k, vendor self-preference, and a counterfactual-delegation ceiling. The substrate is agnostic to how peer information is generated or delivered, so learned routers, richer peer memories, adaptive profile construction, and multi-step delegation can all be evaluated against it. We characterize the substrate with a five-condition reference sweep on the full pool (n=23,375 task instances). Three benchmark-level findings emerge: (i) mean end-task quality is statistically indistinguishable across the four awareness conditions (|beta| <= 0.010, p >= 0.21), so quality-only evaluation would miss the orchestration signal; (ii) routing fidelity-at-1 ranges from 7.5% to 29.5% across conditions at near-equal mean quality, with delivery channel (on-demand tool vs. preloaded description) dominating description content; (iii) a counterfactual ceiling places perfect delegation 15-31 percentage points above measured performance on every suite, locating large unrealized headroom for future orchestration methods. We release the substrate, annotation layer, reference intervention suite, analysis pipeline, and 220 per-condition run archives.

This paper provides an algebraic exposition of the theory of dyadic morality (TDM), a psychological model of moral judgment grounded in a simple two-node template: an intentional agent causing harm to a vulnerable patient. We formalize TDM using structural causal modeling (SCM) notation and identify three psychological operators (typecasting operator, completion operator, and valence-dependent inference mechanism) that extend standard SCM to capture how people compute moral judgments under constraints. We address scalability challenges arising from TDM's dyadic limitation, showing how moral cognition compresses multi-node scenarios through node collapse and sequential processing. Drawing on this algebraic framework, we demonstrate concrete applications to AI policy design: detecting conflicting obligations, structuring helpfulness policies to preserve user agency, and designing post-failure communication as causal interventions. Finally, we recommend scoped, contextual measurement of mind perception over universal averaging to operationalize the theory empirically. This algebraic formalization enables neurosymbolic AI systems to compute morality in a way that is both mathematically rigorous and faithful to human moral cognition.

Developing machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) for complex materials systems remains challenging because it requires expertise in atomistic simulations, machine learning, and workflow design, as well as iterative active learning procedures. Existing automated pipelines typically assume a fixed sequence of stages or depend on domain experts, which limits their adaptability to heterogeneous materials systems where the optimal curriculum is not known in advance. To lower the barrier to developing MLIPs for non-experts, we propose Lang2MLIP, a multi-agent framework that takes natural-language input and formulates end-to-end MLIP development as a sequential decision-making problem solved by large language models (LLMs). At each step, a decision-making agent observes the current dataset, model, evaluation results, and execution log, and then automatically selects an appropriate action to improve the model. This removes the need for a predefined pipeline and enables the agent to self-correct by revisiting earlier subsystems when new failures arise. We evaluate this approach on a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) system with multiple components and interfaces. These results suggest that LLM-based multi-agent systems are a promising direction for automating MLIP development and making it more accessible to non-experts.

Language environments such as web browsers, code terminals, and interactive simulations emit raw text rather than states, and provide none of the runtime structure that MDP analysis requires. No explicit state space, no observation-to-state mapping, no certified transitions, and no termination criterion. We introduce the State-Centric Decision Process (SDP), a runtime framework that constructs these missing inputs by having the agent build them, predicate by predicate, as it acts. At each step the agent commits to a natural-language predicate describing how the world should look, takes an action to make it true, and checks the observation against it. Predicates that pass become certified states, and the resulting trajectory carries the four objects language environments do not provide, namely a task-induced state space, an observation-to-state mapping, certified transitions, and a termination criterion. We evaluate SDP on five benchmarks spanning planning, scientific exploration, web reasoning, and multi-hop question answering. SDP achieves the best training-free results on all five, with the advantage widening as the horizon grows. The certified trajectories additionally support analyses unavailable to reactive agents, including per-predicate credit assignment, failure localization, partial-progress measurement, and modular operator replacement.

Agentic AI failures need post-hoc reconstruction: what the agent did, on whose authority, against which policy, and from what reasoning. Cross-regime feasibility remains unmeasured under one property-level schema. We apply the Decision Trace Reconstructor unmodified to pinned worked-example anchors from six public vendor SDK regimes spanning cloud-agent, observability, tool-use, telemetry, and protocol traces, plus two comparator columns. Each Decision Event Schema (DES) property is classified as fully fillable, partially fillable, structurally unfillable, or opaque. Per-property reconstructability of an agent decision already varies between regimes at this anchor scale. Strict-governance-completeness separates into three tiers ranging from 42.9% to 85.7%, yielding one regime-independent gap (reasoning trace), four regime-dependent gaps, and one Mixed property; the pilot is single-annotator, one anchor per cell, descriptive, with outputs checksum-verifiable from a deposited reproducibility package.

AI agent research spans a wide spectrum: from RL agents that learn from scratch to foundation model agents that leverage pre-trained knowledge, yet no unified benchmark enables fair comparison across these approaches. We present Agentick, a benchmark for sequential decision-making agents designed to evaluate RL, LLM, VLM, hybrid, and human agents on common ground and to power research on the fundamental challenges of sequential decision-making. Agentick provides 37 procedurally generated tasks across six capability categories, four difficulty levels, and five observation modalities, all exposed through a single Gymnasium-compatible interface. The benchmark ships with a Coding API, oracle reference policies for all tasks, pre-built SFT datasets, a composable agent harness, and a live leaderboard. An evaluation spanning 27 configurations and over 90,000 episodes reveals that no single approach dominates: GPT-5 mini leads overall at 0.309 oracle-normalized score while PPO dominates planning and multi-agent tasks; the reasoning harness multiplies LLM performance by 3-10x; and ASCII observations consistently outperform natural language. These findings highlight the substantial room for improvement that remains across all agent paradigms. Agentick's capability-decomposed, multi-modal design provides the empirical infrastructure needed to drive progress toward general autonomous agents, both as an evaluation framework and as a training ground for RL post-training of foundation models in truly sequential environments.

Human Activity Recognition (HAR) using Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensors is a cornerstone of mobile health, smart environments, and human-computer interaction. However, current deep learning-based HAR models often struggle with heavy reliance on labeled data, position-specific ambiguity, and a lack of transparent reasoning. Inspired by the advanced agents framework, which emulates a collaborative agent using Large Language Models (LLMs), we propose SensingAgents, a novel multi-agent system for robust IMU activity recognition. SensingAgents organizes LLM-powered agents into specialized roles: a group of Analyst Agents for position-specific sensor analysis (arm, wrist, belt, pocket), a pair of Advocate Agents that resolves sensor conflicts through dynamic and static dialectical debates, and a Decision Agent that ensures reliability under sensor drift or failure. Evaluation on the Shoaib dataset demonstrates that SensingAgents significantly outperforms state-of-the-art single-agent and multi-agent LLM models, achieving an accuracy of 79.5% in a zero setting--29% higher than existing agent models and 9.4% higher than deep learning baselines--particularly in complex scenarios where multi-sensor data is conflicting or noisy. Our work highlights the potential of multi-agent collaborative reasoning for advancing the robustness and interpretability of ubiquitous sensing systems.

High-precision CNC machining of free-form aerospace components requires bounded compensations informed by inspection, simulation, and process knowledge. Off-the-shelf large language model (LLM) assistants can generate text, but they do not reliably execute risk-constrained multi-step numerical workflows or provide auditable provenance for high-stakes decisions. We present multi-agent knowledge analysis (MAKA), a human-in-the-loop decision-support architecture that separates intent routing, tools-only quantitative analysis, knowledge graph retrieval, and critic-based verification that enforces physical plausibility, safety bounds, and provenance completeness before recommendations are surfaced for human approval. MAKA is instantiated on a Ti-6Al-4V rotor blade machining testbed by fusing virtual-machining path-tracking error fields, cutting-force and deflection simulations, and scan-based 3D inspection deviation maps from 16 blades. The analysis decomposes deviation into an evidence-linked pathing component, a drift-based wear proxy capturing systematic evolution across parts, a residual systematic compliance term, and a variability proxy for instability-aware escalation. In a three-level tool-orchestration benchmark (single-step through $\geq$3-step stateful sequences), MAKA improves successful tool execution by up to 87.5 percentage points relative to an unstructured single-model interaction pattern with identical tool access. Digital twin what-if studies show MAKA can coordinate traceable compensation candidates that reduce predicted surface deviation from order $10^{-2}$in to approximately $\pm 10^{-3}$in over most of the blade within the simulation environment, providing a pre-deployment verification signal for risk-aware human decision-making.

We present two new classes of causal models of decision-making agents. Our approach is motivated by the needs of modeling the economics of computing systems. These systems are composed of subsystems and can exhibit endogenous limits on cognitive resources and value discounting. Structural Causal Decision Models (SCDMs) expand on Structural Causal Influence Models. Like SCIMs, they explicitly represent the causal relationships between model variables and the payoffs of agent decisions. Additionally, agent decisions can be constrained by their causal antecedents, and SCDMs can have open root variables for which no probability distribution or structural equation is given. We show that SCDMs have a well-defined and computationally useful property of composability. Building on SCDMs, we then define a Structural Causal Decision Process (SCDP) as a recurring SCDM with a discount variable. SCDPs benefit from the useful composition properties of SCDMs. Moreover, SCDPs are strictly more expressive than POMDPs because they do not assume rational belief formation. Indeed, an SCDP can endogenously model the memory-formation process, and is thus useful for modeling resource rational agents in dynamic settings. SCDPs are also capable of modeling variable discounting, a tool used widely in social scientific modeling. We pose that SCDPs are a useful framework for policy simulation for the digital economy, mechanism design for information systems, and digital twin modeling of cyberinfrastructure.

This paper presents the rAIson platform, a high-level technological environment for the development of automated, reliable and explainable decision-making agents. The research underlying the platform and its technological progress has now reached a mature stage that allows the platform to be used for the development of complex real-life applications without writing a single line of code.

Building scalable and reusable multi-agent decision policies from offline datasets remains a challenge in offline multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), as existing methods often rely on fixed observation formats and action spaces that limit generalization. In contrast, large language models (LLMs) offer a flexible modeling interface that can naturally accommodate heterogeneous observations and actions. Motivated by this, we propose the Decision Language Model (DLM), which formulates multi-agent decision making as a dialogue-style sequence prediction problem under the centralized training with decentralized execution paradigm. DLM is trained in two stages: a supervised fine-tuning phase, which leverages dialogue-style datasets for centralized training with inter-agent context and generates executable actions from offline trajectories, followed by a group relative policy optimization phase to enhance robustness to out-of-distribution actions through lightweight reward functions. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that a unified DLM outperforms strong offline MARL baselines and LLM-based conversational decision-making methods, while demonstrating strong zero-shot generalization to unseen scenarios across tasks.

Long-horizon enterprise agents make high-stakes decisions (loan underwriting, claims adjudication, clinical review, prior authorization) under lossy memory, multi-step reasoning, and binding regulatory constraints. Current evaluation reports a single task-success scalar that conflates distinct failure modes and hides whether an agent is aligned with the standards its deployment environment requires. We propose that long-horizon decision behavior decomposes into four orthogonal alignment axes, each independently measurable and failable: factual precision (FRP), reasoning coherence (RCS), compliance reconstruction (CRR), and calibrated abstention (CAR). CRR is a novel regulatory-grounded axis; CAR is a measurement axis separating coverage from accuracy. We exercise the decomposition on a controlled benchmark (LongHorizon-Bench) covering loan qualification and insurance claims adjudication with deterministic ground-truth construction. Running six memory architectures, we find structure aggregate accuracy cannot see: retrieval collapses on factual precision; schema-anchored architectures pay a scaffolding tax; plain summarization under a fact-preservation prompt is a strong baseline on FRP, RCS, EDA, and CRR; and all six architectures commit on every case, exposing a decisional-alignment axis the field has not targeted. The decomposition also surfaced a pre-registered prediction of our own, that summarization would fail factual recall, which the data reversed at large magnitude, an axis-level reversal aggregate accuracy would have hidden. Institutional alignment (regulatory reconstruction) and decisional alignment (calibrated abstention) are under-represented in the alignment literature and become load-bearing once decisions leave the laboratory. The framework transfers to any regulated decisioning domain via two steps: build a fact schema, and calibrate the CRR auditor prompt.

Just like traditional BPM systems, agentic BPM systems are built around a specification of the process under consideration. Their distinguishing feature, however, is that the execution of the process is driven by multiple autonomous decision-makers, referred to as agents. Since such agents cannot be fully controlled, the process specification is augmented with explicit objectives, or goals, assigned to the participating agents. Agents then pursue these goals, at least to the best of their efforts, under suitable assumptions on the behavior of others, by adopting appropriate strategies. Centrally, the organization enacting the process can use these specifications to provide guardrails on the decision-making capabilities of agents at the strategy level. This paper sets up the mathematical foundations of such systems in three key settings and analyzes four foundational problems of agentic BPM.

Simulating group-level user behavior enables scalable counterfactual evaluation of merchant strategies without costly online experiments. However, building a trustworthy simulator faces two structural challenges. First, information incompleteness causes reasoning-based simulators to over-rationalize when unobserved factors such as offline context and implicit habits are missing. Second, mechanism duality requires capturing both interpretable preferences and implicit statistical regularities, which no single paradigm achieves alone. We propose Policy-Guided Hybrid Simulation (PGHS), a dual-process framework that mines transferable decision policies from behavioral trajectories and uses them as a shared alignment layer. This layer anchors an LLM-based reasoning branch that prevents over-rationalization and an ML-based fitting branch that absorbs implicit regularities. Group-level predictions from both branches are fused for complementary correction. We deploy PGHS on Meituan with 101 merchants and over 26,000 trajectories. PGHS achieves a group simulation error of 8.80%, improving over the best reasoning-based and fitting-based baselines by 45.8% and 40.9% respectively.

Knowledge-based visual question answering (KB-VQA) requires vision-language models to understand images and use external knowledge, especially for rare entities and long-tail facts. Most existing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods adopt a fixed pipeline that sequentially retrieves information, filters it, and then produces an answer. Such a design makes it difficult to adapt to diverse question types. Moreover, it separates retrieval from reasoning, making it hard for the model to decide when to search, how to refine queries, or when to stop. As a result, the retrieved evidence is often poorly aligned with the question. To address these limitations, we reformulate KB-VQA as a search-agent problem and model the solving process as a multi-step decision-making procedure. At each step, the agent selects one of four actions-Answer, Image Retrieval, Text Retrieval, and Caption-based on its current information state. We further design an automated pipeline to collect multi-step trajectories that record the agent's reasoning process, tool usage, and intermediate decisions. These trajectories are then used as supervision for fine-tuning. Experiments on InfoSeek and E-VQA demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance, consistently outperforming prior baselines and confirming the effectiveness of our framework.

As artificial agents become increasingly capable, what internal structure is necessary for an agent to act competently under uncertainty? Classical results show that optimal control can be implemented using belief states or world models, but not that such representations are required. We prove quantitative "selection theorems" showing that strong task performance (low average-case regret) forces world models, belief-like memory and -- under task mixtures -- persistent regime-tracking variables resembling functional primitives of emotion, along with informational modularity under block-structured tasks. Our results cover stochastic policies, partial observability, and evaluation under task distributions, without assuming optimality, determinism, or access to an explicit model. Technically, we reduce predictive modeling to binary "betting" decisions and show that regret bounds limit probability mass on suboptimal bets, enforcing the predictive distinctions needed to separate high-margin outcomes. In fully observed settings, this yields approximate recovery of the interventional transition kernel; under partial observability, it implies necessity of predictive state and belief-like memory, addressing an open question in prior world-model recovery work.

Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing. While AI offers substantial efficiency improvements, existing solutions lack comprehensive reasoning and internal mechanisms to ensure reliability in regulated, high-stakes environments. Full automation remains impractical and inadvisable when human judgment and accountability are critical. This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism as a bounded safety architecture for regulated underwriting workflows. In this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers. This internal system of checks and balances addresses a critical gap in AI safety for regulated workflows. Additionally, the research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents. This taxonomy provides a structured framework for risk identification and management in high-stakes applications. Experimental evaluation using 500 expert-validated underwriting cases demonstrates that the adversarial critique mechanism reduces AI hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and increases decision accuracy from 92% to 96%. At the same time, the framework enforces strict human authority over all binding decisions by design. These findings indicate that adversarial self-critique supports safer AI deployment in regulated domains and offers a model for responsible integration where human oversight is indispensable.