Software Engineering in the Agent Era From Trustworthy Change to Human Agent Software Organizations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04630v1
• Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 02:05:35 GMT
• Title: Software Engineering in the Agent Era From Trustworthy Change to Human Agent Software Organizations
• Abstract summary: Software agents make digital execution elastic.<n>Problem framing, semantic commitment, verification, integration, attention, and residual-risk acceptance remain bounded by human cognition.
• Score: 4.180009544319738
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Software agents make digital execution elastic: repository analysis, code generation, testing, migration, tool use, and operations can be replicated and parallelized without proportional human headcount. Problem framing, semantic commitment, verification, integration, attention, and residual-risk acceptance remain bounded by human cognition, organizational authority, and economic capacity. How should scalable execution be governed so organizations can accept and sustain its changes? Our testable framework has two constructs and one execution abstraction. Trustworthy Change (TC) is the engineering object moving from intent through delegated execution, verification, integration, acceptance, and operation. Responsibility Topology classifies organizations by the distribution of independent residual-risk acceptance authority. A single-center topology has one final baseline responsibility anchor; a multi-anchor topology requires joint acceptance across independently governed domains. The Human-Agent Cell (HAC) produces candidates, proposals, and evidence; execution grants no acceptance authority. As execution and authority scale differently, distributed HACs create context-coherence and invalidation pressures, while multi-anchor governance adds joint acceptance and explicit responsibility closure. Responsibility, accountability, change management, specification, verification, and human oversight predate this work; our claim is only that agent-scaled execution changes how they fit together. We make that authority an explicit classification axis and derive consequences for change state, shared engineering facts, verification, and flow control. Progressive Specification and bounded-capacity analysis remain hypotheses to test, not laws. We contribute theory construction and operationalization; empirical validity remains open to controlled, longitudinal, and field studies.

Related papers

• A Contract-Centered Architecture for Scalable and Manageable Agentic Runtimes [4.078233224301927]
  We present four responsibility objects as shared organizational contracts.<n>The central contribution is one bounded, falsifiable hypothesis, P1.<n>This paper contributes a contract-bounded runtime architecture, a source-preserving data substrate, and a falsifiable measurement protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T13:09:49Z)
• The Authority Resolution Framework: A Five-Domain Ontology for Governing Who and What Decides, at Scale [0.0]
  This paper introduces the Authority Resolution Framework (ARF), a five-domain ontology for representing and resolving authority.<n>ARF defines the Authority Relation (AR) as a cross-domain primitive binding an actor, action, object, bounded context, justification chain, and a calibration measure.<n>ARF is designed to support AI agents in determining the provenance, scope and contextual validity of authority before executing consequential actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T16:05:50Z)
• Agent Gym: A Framework for Continuous Evaluation and Evolution of LLM Agents Through Human-in-the-Loop Feedback [0.0]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents face a fundamental tension: the agent's behavior is frozen at deployment time, while the business rules and edge cases it must handle continue to evolve.<n>Existing approaches address agent construction and one-time evaluation but provide no structured mechanism for continuous post-deployment behavioral correction.<n>We introduce Agent Gym, a modular, domain-agnostic framework that wraps any existing LLM-based agent in a continuous evaluation-and-evolution loop.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T07:27:26Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels [53.63220028820581]
  Embodied intelligence integrates learned perception and decision making with real-time computation, control, and physical interaction.<n>We define trustworthy embodied intelligence as the sustained capacity to execute specified tasks reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:50:44Z)
• Behavioral Governance for Autonomous AI Agents: The AgentBound Framework [2.4469484645516832]
  We present AgentBound, a runtime governance framework that provides verifiable behavioral oversight for autonomous AI agents.<n>AgentBound evaluates each proposed action using three independent authorities: delegated authorization, owner-signed behavioral constitutions, and site action contracts.<n>AgentBound generates cryptographically verifiable governance receipts that bind every action to the exact delegation, policy, and semantic artifacts governing the decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T23:12:06Z)
• Definitional alignment before capability alignment: a Design-Science framework for adjudicating claims about AGI [0.0]
  "AGI" lacks a single shared and stable referent and competing operationalizations can return different verdicts on the same system.<n>This article treats that under-specification as a design and governance problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T22:04:56Z)
• Foundation Protocol: A Coordination Layer for Agentic Society [78.01727114524464]
  Foundation Protocol (FP) is a graph-first coordination layer for an emerging human-AI society.<n>FP unifies heterogeneous entities, including agents, tools, resources, humans, institutions, and organizations.<n>The aim is to keep autonomous agency composable while keeping accountability non-negotiable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T04:20:35Z)
• Verifiable Agentic Infrastructure: Proof-Derived Authorization for Sovereign AI Systems [2.124730017640531]
  We introduce a verification framework for governed mutation systems that computes execution authority from structured artifacts.<n>DTF provides an infrastructure foundation for making agentic execution governable, auditable, and bounded in sovereign AI deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T17:58:52Z)
• IMPACT-CYCLE: A Contract-Based Multi-Agent System for Claim-Level Supervisory Correction of Long-Video Semantic Memory [73.22944697933603]
  Existing pipelines produce opaque, end-to-end outputs that expose no intermediate state for inspection.<n>We present IMPACT-Cycle, a supervisory multi-agent system that reformulates long-video understanding as a multimodal iterative claim-level maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T03:03:33Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreements [56.29265568399648]
  We argue that disagreements prevent premature consensus and expand the explored solution space.<n>Disagreements on task-critical steps can derail collaboration depending on the topology of solution paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:24:43Z)

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.