When Agent Governance Helps

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.05531v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 01:16:39 GMT
• Title: When Agent Governance Helps
• Abstract summary: Governed Autotelic Multi-Agent Product Organization (GAMPO) is a framework for governed AI agent organizations.<n>We probe a prompt-layer instantiation of GAMPO on CHI-Bench, a long-horizon healthcare benchmark, across open and frontier models.<n>The contribution is a named, auditable framework and capability-gated evidence that governance should be sized to spare capacity.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: No specification says how a governed autotelic AI agent organization, where agents pursue self-generated goals inside guardrails, should be designed and evaluated. We answer in two parts. First, we synthesize the Governed Autotelic Multi-Agent Product Organization (GAMPO) framework from a document-based qualitative evidence synthesis of 321 sources, integrating agency, agile, platform, and governance theory into a runnable specification. Second, we probe a prompt-layer instantiation of GAMPO on CHI-Bench, a long-horizon healthcare benchmark, across open and frontier models. The result is a boundary condition: governance benefit is gated by a model's spare capacity and is domain- and model-specific. On capacity-constrained open models the full procedure yields no reliable benefit, whereas a single "verify your writes" sentence doubles task success (pass@1 2/20 to 4/20). At the frontier the same scaffold lifts prior-authorization 24% to 40% but nets zero on another model, a gap traced to a stable recommendation-override disposition. A second result refines the first: replacing the generic procedure with an answer-blind, per-task definition-of-done, keyed only to the case's own policy and published standards, never the hidden key, raises prior-authorization to 84% under best-of-five self-consistency (68% single-attempt, confirmed by a held-out board) and utilization-management to 44%, while care-management meets a subjective content-quality wall. The contribution is a named, auditable framework and capability-gated evidence that governance should be sized to spare capacity, and that at the frontier a case-grounded specification beats a uniform procedure. Findings are exploratory: partial instantiation, small per-cell samples (n = 5-25), and single trials.

Related papers

• Governance at the Boundary: How Agent Decomposition Degrades Policy Compliance [6.411104724993454]
  We introduce Fiducia-bench, a benchmark for the governability of financial agents.<n>We use it to study a question no prior benchmark addresses: does an agent degrade its governance?<n>Policy-relevant facts discovered by one component are attenuated at the handoff boundary before reaching the component that must act on them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T03:31:59Z)
• Ontology-Amplified Distillation and Contextuality Auditing for Sovereign Enterprise Language Models: A Combined Proof-of-Mechanism and Negative-Results Method Study [0.0]
  This paper combines two related FAOS studies into one mechanism-and-control article.<n>First, it reports a reduced-power proof-of-mechanism study of ontology-amplified distillation.<n>Second, the paper consolidates a contextuality-audit method for enterprise-agent routing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T15:42:40Z)
• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• Toward Pre-Deployment Assurance for Enterprise AI Agents: Ontology-Grounded Simulation and Trust Certification [0.0]
  Post-deployment monitoring, human-in-the-loop controls, and prompt-level guardrails offer limited assurance once an agent is operating in production.<n>Ontology-grounded verification framework is first to combine three components.<n>System generates regulatory, operational, and adversarial test scenarios automatically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T02:37:11Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• Goedel-Code-Prover: Hierarchical Proof Search for Open State-of-the-Art Code Verification [34.98335927187393]
  Large language models (LLMs) can generate plausible code but offer limited guarantees of correctness.<n>We propose a hierarchical proof search framework for automated code verification in Lean4.<n>We train Goedel-Code-Prover-8B, a single unified policy for both decomposition and completion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T18:42:04Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• DrawingBench: Evaluating Spatial Reasoning and UI Interaction Capabilities of Large Language Models through Mouse-Based Drawing Tasks [10.977990951788422]
  DrawingBench is a verification framework for evaluating the trustworthiness of agentic LLMs.<n>Our framework comprises 250 diverse prompts across 20 categories and 4 difficulty levels.<n>We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs across 1,000 tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T01:18:21Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)

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.