Resilience Meets Autonomy: Governing Embodied AI in Critical Infrastructure

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15885v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 20:28:02 GMT
• Title: Resilience Meets Autonomy: Governing Embodied AI in Critical Infrastructure
• Abstract summary: Critical infrastructure increasingly incorporates embodied AI for monitoring, predictive maintenance, and decision support.<n>However, AI systems designed to handle statistically representable uncertainty struggle with cascading failures and crisis dynamics.<n>This paper argues that Embodied AIs resilience depends on bounded autonomy within a hybrid governance architecture.
• Score: 0.9402398587785238
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Critical infrastructure increasingly incorporates embodied AI for monitoring, predictive maintenance, and decision support. However, AI systems designed to handle statistically representable uncertainty struggle with cascading failures and crisis dynamics that exceed their training assumptions. This paper argues that Embodied AIs resilience depends on bounded autonomy within a hybrid governance architecture. We outline four oversight modes and map them to critical infrastructure sectors based on task complexity, risk level, and consequence severity. Drawing on the EU AI Act, ISO safety standards, and crisis management research, we argue that effective governance requires a structured allocation of machine capability and human judgement.

Related papers

• AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems [14.280538199149634]
  This vision paper introduces AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE)<n>ADAE is a proposed AI engineering subdiscipline concerned with establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for deployed AI systems.<n>We articulate a research agenda built around four interconnected pillars: structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational, and institutional risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T15:18:41Z)
• The AI Resilience Gap: Bringing Artificial Intelligence Inside the Operational Resilience Perimeter [0.0]
  We argue that AI adoption creates a resilience obligation distinct from, and inadequately covered by, the trustworthy AI stack.<n>We propose the AI Resilience Framework: a regime-agnostic method for bringing AI dependencies inside the operational resilience perimeter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-08T12:54:11Z)
• From Frontier to Shadow AI: A Simmering Threat to Assurance and Security in Critical Infrastructure [8.167474882691755]
  We present the first empirical study of shadow AI in critical infrastructure environments.<n>We analyse how shadow AI manifests in practice, how it interacts with existing technical and governance controls, and the resulting security, assurance, and compliance risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T07:21:08Z)
• AI Governance Control Stack for Operational Stability: Achieving Hardened Governance in AI Systems [0.0]
  This paper introduces the AI Governance Control Stack for Operational Stability, a layered governance architecture designed to ensure traceable and resilient AI system behavior.<n>The proposed control stack integrates six complementary governance layers: system-of-record version governance, evidence-based verification, decision-time explainability logging, telemetry monitoring, model drift detection, and governance escalation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T19:01:42Z)
• Sovereign Agents: Towards Infrastructural Sovereignty and Diffused Accountability in Decentralized AI [1.5755923640031846]
  We propose infrastructural sovereignty as an analytic lens for understanding how cryptographic self-custody, decentralized execution environments, and protocol-mediated continuity scaffold agentic sovereignty.<n>We argue that sovereignty in such systems exists on a spectrum determined by infrastructural hardness-the degree to which underlying technical systems resist intervention or collapse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T17:30:17Z)
• Trustworthy Orchestration Artificial Intelligence by the Ten Criteria with Control-Plane Governance [1.9691447018712314]
  This paper presents the Ten Criteria for Trustworthy Orchestration AI.<n>It integrates human input, semantic coherence, audit and provenance integrity into a unified Control-Panel architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T05:49:26Z)
• Responsible AI Adoption in the Public Sector: A Data-Centric Taxonomy of AI Adoption Challenges [0.0]
  This study develops a taxonomy of data-related challenges to responsible AI adoption in government.<n>Based on a systematic review of 43 studies and 21 expert evaluations, the taxonomy identifies 13 key challenges across technological, organizational, and environmental dimensions.<n> Annotated with institutional pressures, the taxonomy serves as a diagnostic tool to surface'symptoms' of high-risk AI deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T18:42:09Z)
• Embodied AI: Emerging Risks and Opportunities for Policy Action [46.48780452120922]
  Embodied AI (EAI) systems can exist in, learn from, reason about, and act in the physical world.<n>EAI systems pose significant risks, including physical harm from malicious use, mass surveillance, as well as economic and societal disruption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T17:59:07Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Web3 x AI Agents: Landscape, Integrations, and Foundational Challenges [49.69200207497795]
  The convergence of Web3 technologies and AI agents represents a rapidly evolving frontier poised to reshape decentralized ecosystems.<n>This paper presents the first and most comprehensive analysis of the intersection between Web3 and AI agents, examining five critical dimensions: landscape, economics, governance, security, and trust mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T15:44:58Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• A Conceptual Framework for AI-based Decision Systems in Critical Infrastructures [2.272797989529731]
  The interaction between humans and AI in safety-critical systems presents a unique set of challenges that remain partially addressed by existing frameworks.<n>A framework that holistically integrates human and AI capabilities while addressing these concerns is notably required.<n>This paper proposes a holistic conceptual framework for critical infrastructures by adopting an interdisciplinary approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T18:38:26Z)
• A Framework for the Assurance of AI-Enabled Systems [0.0]
  This paper proposes a claims-based framework for risk management and assurance of AI systems.<n>The paper's contributions are a framework process for AI assurance, a set of relevant definitions, and a discussion of important considerations in AI assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T13:44:01Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• AI Maintenance: A Robustness Perspective [91.28724422822003]
  We introduce highlighted robustness challenges in the AI lifecycle and motivate AI maintenance by making analogies to car maintenance. We propose an AI model inspection framework to detect and mitigate robustness risks. Our proposal for AI maintenance facilitates robustness assessment, status tracking, risk scanning, model hardening, and regulation throughout the AI lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-08T15:02:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.