Consequence-Aware Autonomous Execution

Consequence-aware autonomous execution is about agents that not only act autonomously, but explicitly model, predict, and optimize over the downstream consequences (including risks, penalties, and policy violations) of their actions before and during execution.¹²³

Working definition

For an LLM/agentic system, you can treat consequence-aware autonomous execution as:

• Closed-loop autonomy: perception → planning → action → feedback without tight human-in-the-loop gating.⁴¹
• Forward consequence modeling: explicitly estimating probabilistic outcomes, risks, and policy penalties of candidate plans/actions, not just immediate rewards.³¹
• Runtime safety enforcement: using constraints and monitors that can veto, modify, or require escalation for risky actions at execution time.²
• Governance alignment: integrating organizational policies, legal constraints, and risk tolerances into the agent’s decision loop.⁵⁶

This is the shift from “tool-using assistant” to “semi-independent operator that is aware of what can go wrong and adapts behavior accordingly.”¹⁵

Key research building blocks

A few strands of work you can anchor on:

• Risk-aware agent architectures:
  • Reflective Risk-Aware Agent Architecture (R2A2) uses constrained MDPs with joint reward–risk optimization, risk-aware world models, and meta-policy adaptation for principled safety in autonomous agents.¹
• Runtime enforcement and guardrails:
  • Customizable runtime enforcement DSLs for LLM agents that define rules over triggers, predicates, and enforcement actions (e.g., “if transfer > threshold then require human approval”), achieving >90% unsafe-execution prevention across code, embodied agents, and AV scenarios.²
• Safety benchmarks for autonomous agents:
  • Mobile-device and embodied-agent benchmarks showing that baseline agents frequently fail to prevent harmful actions or resist prompt injection, motivating explicit safety-first prompting and enforcement.⁷
• Policy- and penalty-aware reasoning:
  • Logic-programming frameworks where agents reason not just about compliance, but also about penalties and when policy deviations may be justified for high-stakes goals.³
• Autonomy-induced security risks:
  • Surveys of autonomy-induced risks (tool misuse, long-horizon instability, memory poisoning, spurious causal chains) and how multi-step planning amplifies structural failure modes if consequences are not modeled.¹

Practical system pattern

A concrete architecture for consequence-aware autonomous execution in your agentic stacks could look like:

• World & risk model layer
  • CMDP-style state representation with safety variables and risk budgets per task.¹
  • Learned/hand-crafted models of outcome distributions for critical actions (deploy, transfer, revoke access).
• Policy & constraint layer
  • DSL or rules engine describing invariants and guards (who can move which asset, what deployment windows, what PII can leave which boundary).²
  • Policy objects attach to tools/resources and are consulted pre- and at runtime.
• Planner & critic loop
  • Planner proposes plans and actions optimizing reward subject to risk budgets and hard constraints.
  • Reflective critic process re-scores candidates for risk and policy penalties, potentially revising plans.³¹
• Enforcement & escalation
  • Runtime enforcement engine that can: block, auto-mitigate (e.g., sandbox, dry run), or request human confirmation.²
  • Audit log + explanation traces to support governance needs and post-hoc review.⁶⁵
• Evaluation & governance
  • Scenario-based evaluations using safety benchmarks (e.g., mobile-device or enterprise-operation tasks) to measure harmful action rate, near-miss rate, and adherence to policies.⁷⁵

Strong follow-up prompts

Given your background, here are focused prompts you can paste back in:

1. “Design a CMDP-based risk and consequence model for an LLM agent that can deploy code and modify cloud resources in a regulated SaaS environment; include state, actions, rewards, risk metrics, and example constraints.”⁵²¹
2. “Propose a runtime enforcement DSL schema and example rules for consequence-aware autonomous execution of agents in healthcare/fintech (transfers, PHI queries, infrastructure changes), referencing recent LLM-agent safety work.”³²
3. “Survey and compare recent 2024–2025 arxiv papers on safe autonomous LLM agents and autonomy-induced risks, focusing on architectures that explicitly reason about downstream consequences and penalties.”⁷²³¹
4. “Given a multi-agent orchestration framework (e.g., LangGraph/Temporal), outline a governance layer that enforces consequence-aware execution: policy modeling, approval workflows, logging, and safety evaluation metrics.”⁶⁵¹

If you tell me your target domain (e.g., infra, trading, PHI workflows), I can specialize this into a concrete design plus citations to specific arXiv papers. ^{89101112131415}

⁂

---

Frameworks for safe autonomous decision-making like R2A2

Frameworks like R2A2 give you a pattern: ground the agent’s cognition in explicit risk models (often CMDPs), add reflective world modeling, and wrap perception–memory–action in governed modules with runtime constraints.¹⁶¹⁷¹⁸

R2A2 in one paragraph

R2A2 (Reflective Risk-Aware Agent Architecture) is a unified cognitive framework for highly autonomous agents built on Constrained Markov Decision Processes. It extends the agent’s world model to simulate not only task dynamics but also failure trajectories and value-sensitive impacts, enabling threat‑conditioned planning and pruning unsafe action sequences before execution. It regulates interactions with memory, tools, and planning via contract-based invocation and runtime validation, so each module operates under verifiable safety policies. It also incorporates meta‑policy adaptation and joint reward–risk optimization, so the agent can update its strategy as it encounters new risks while staying within explicit risk budgets.¹⁷¹⁸¹⁶

Key paper: “A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model Agents” (Su et al., 2025) – section introducing R2A2.¹⁶¹⁷

Related frameworks and ideas

These are “R2A2-adjacent” rather than identical, but implement similar risk-aware or safety-first decision patterns:

• Risk-aware answer / defer policies
  • Frameworks that explicitly define reward for correct answers, penalties for incorrect answers, and payoff for refusal $(r_{\mathrm{cor}}, r_{\mathrm{inc}}, r_{\mathrm{ref}})$, then test whether LMs adapt answer/abstain behavior to the risk structure.¹⁹
  • Shows that LMs tend to over-answer in high-risk settings and over-defer in low-risk ones, motivating explicit risk-aware decision layers on top of raw competence.¹⁹
• Risk-sensitive task-specific frameworks (autonomy in verticals)
  • SafeDrive: modular risk-sensitive driving agent with a Risk Module, LLM-based decision-making, and closed-loop reflection; it quantifies multi-factor coupled risks and uses risk priors + CoT to generate risk-aware actions.²⁰
  • RAIL (Risk-Aware Human-in-the-Loop): for autonomous vehicles; combines human takeovers and safety events as explicit penalties and uses a contextual arbitration mechanism to tune automatic interventions vs human control.²¹
• Survey / blueprint–type work
  • Autonomy-induced risk surveys catalog architectural fragilities and propose multi-layer defenses: input sanitization, memory lifecycle control, constrained decision-making, structured tool invocation, introspective reflection.¹⁸¹⁷
  • They position R2A2 as one concrete blueprint for “safety as a first-class design principle” in future agent architectures.¹⁷¹⁶

For a quick literature trail: Su et al. 2025 (R2A2 + autonomy-induced risks), SafeDrive (LLM-based risk-sensitive driving), Answer/Refuse risk-aware decision framework (arxiv:2402.00367/2503.01332), and RAIL for risk-aware human-in-the-loop AV control.^20211719

Design pattern you can reuse

Abstracting across these frameworks, you get a reusable pattern you can lift into agentic SaaS / infra control:

• 1. Formalize risk and constraints
  • Use CMDPs or explicit reward/risk tuples; define hard constraints (no-go actions), soft constraints (penalties), and risk budgets at task or session level.¹⁷¹⁹
• 2. Risk-aware world model / simulator
  • Maintain a model that predicts not just task outcomes but failure modes and their severities; support “what if I execute this plan/tool sequence?” queries.²⁰¹⁷
• 3. Reflective critic / meta-policy
  • Wrap the base planner/policy with a reflective layer that evaluates candidate plans against risk budgets and can revise or veto them, updating its strategy as it observes near-misses and incidents.²¹¹⁷
• 4. Governed modules and tools
  • Treat memory, tools, and external actuators as modules with contracts: preconditions, postconditions, and policy hooks (logging, validation, auditing).¹⁸¹⁷
• 5. Human-in-the-loop hooks
  • Use explicit answer/defer or act/escalate decisions, with thresholds tuned to risk structure and domain tolerance.¹⁹²¹

Suggested follow-up prompts

You can use these to drive next iterations:

1. “Instantiate the R2A2 architecture for an LLM-based infrastructure agent (deployments, config changes, data access) using a CMDP formulation; define states, actions, constraints, and meta-policy adaptation loops.”¹⁶¹⁷
2. “Compare R2A2 with domain-specific risk-aware frameworks like SafeDrive and RAIL; extract common architectural elements and propose a generic template for safe autonomous decision-making agents.”²¹¹⁷²⁰
3. “Design an answer/defer layer for an LLM agent handling regulated queries (PHI/PII, financial orders), using the risk-aware reward structure $(r_{\mathrm{cor}}, r_{\mathrm{inc}}, r_{\mathrm{ref}})$ and mapping it to policy rules.”^{19 222324252627282930}

⁂

---

Consequence-aware autonomous execution is about agents that not only act autonomously, but explicitly model, predict, and optimize over the downstream consequences (including risks, penalties, and policy violations) of their actions before and during execution.

Working definition For an LLM/agentic system, you can treat consequence-aware autonomous execution as: Closed-loop autonomy: perception → planning → action → feedback without tight human-in-the-loop gating. Forward consequence modeling: explicitly estimating probabilistic outcomes, risks, and policy penalties of candidate plans/actions, not just immediate rewards. Runtime safety enforcement: using constraints and monitors that can veto, modify, or require escalation for risky actions at execution time.​ Governance alignment: integrating organizational policies, legal constraints, and risk tolerances into the agent’s decision loop. This is the shift from “tool-using assistant” to “semi-independent operator that is aware of what can go wrong and adapts behavior accordingly.” Key research building blocks A few strands of work you can anchor on: Risk-aware agent architectures: Reflective Risk-Aware Agent Architecture (R2A2) uses constrained MDPs with joint reward–risk optimization, risk-aware world models, and meta-policy adaptation for principled safety in autonomous agents.​ Runtime enforcement and guardrails: Customizable runtime enforcement DSLs for LLM agents that define rules over triggers, predicates, and enforcement actions (e.g., “if transfer > threshold then require human approval”), achieving >90% unsafe-execution prevention across code, embodied agents, and AV scenarios.​ Safety benchmarks for autonomous agents: Mobile-device and embodied-agent benchmarks showing that baseline agents frequently fail to prevent harmful actions or resist prompt injection, motivating explicit safety-first prompting and enforcement.​ Policy- and penalty-aware reasoning: Logic-programming frameworks where agents reason not just about compliance, but also about penalties and when policy deviations may be justified for high-stakes goals.​ Autonomy-induced security risks: Surveys of autonomy-induced risks (tool misuse, long-horizon instability, memory poisoning, spurious causal chains) and how multi-step planning amplifies structural failure modes if consequences are not modeled.​ Practical system pattern A concrete architecture for consequence-aware autonomous execution in your agentic stacks could look like: World & risk model layer CMDP-style state representation with safety variables and risk budgets per task.​ Learned/hand-crafted models of outcome distributions for critical actions (deploy, transfer, revoke access). Policy & constraint layer DSL or rules engine describing invariants and guards (who can move which asset, what deployment windows, what PII can leave which boundary).​ Policy objects attach to tools/resources and are consulted pre- and at runtime. Planner & critic loop Planner proposes plans and actions optimizing reward subject to risk budgets and hard constraints. Reflective critic process re-scores candidates for risk and policy penalties, potentially revising plans. Enforcement & escalation Runtime enforcement engine that can: block, auto-mitigate (e.g., sandbox, dry run), or request human confirmation.​ Audit log + explanation traces to support governance needs and post-hoc review. Evaluation & governance Scenario-based evaluations using safety benchmarks (e.g., mobile-device or enterprise-operation tasks) to measure harmful action rate, near-miss rate, and adherence to policies. Strong follow-up prompts Given your background, here are focused prompts you can paste back in: “Design a CMDP-based risk and consequence model for an LLM agent that can deploy code and modify cloud resources in a regulated SaaS environment; include state, actions, rewards, risk metrics, and example constraints.” “Propose a runtime enforcement DSL schema and example rules for consequence-aware autonomous execution of agents in healthcare/fintech (transfers, PHI queries, infrastructure changes), referencing recent LLM-agent safety work.” “Survey and compare recent 2024–2025 arxiv papers on safe autonomous LLM agents and autonomy-induced risks, focusing on architectures that explicitly reason about downstream consequences and penalties.” “Given a multi-agent orchestration framework (e.g., LangGraph/Temporal), outline a governance layer that enforces consequence-aware execution: policy modeling, approval workflows, logging, and safety evaluation metrics.” If you tell me your target domain (e.g., infra, trading, PHI workflows), I can specialize this into a concrete design plus citations to specific arXiv papers. Related Real world examples of consequence-aware AI agents Key safety mechanisms in autonomous execution Differences between autonomous execution and AI assistance Risks of autonomy in LLM agents and mitigations Frameworks for safe autonomous decision-making like R2A2 Frameworks for safe autonomous decision-making like R2A2 Frameworks like R2A2 give you a pattern: ground the agent’s cognition in explicit risk models (often CMDPs), add reflective world modeling, and wrap perception–memory–action in governed modules with runtime constraints. R2A2 in one paragraph R2A2 (Reflective Risk-Aware Agent Architecture) is a unified cognitive framework for highly autonomous agents built on Constrained Markov Decision Processes. It extends the agent’s world model to simulate not only task dynamics but also failure trajectories and value-sensitive impacts, enabling threat‑conditioned planning and pruning unsafe action sequences before execution. It regulates interactions with memory, tools, and planning via contract-based invocation and runtime validation, so each module operates under verifiable safety policies. It also incorporates meta‑policy adaptation and joint reward–risk optimization, so the agent can update its strategy as it encounters new risks while staying within explicit risk budgets. Key paper: “A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model Agents” (Su et al., 2025) – section introducing R2A2. Related frameworks and ideas These are “R2A2-adjacent” rather than identical, but implement similar risk-aware or safety-first decision patterns: Risk-aware answer / defer policies Frameworks that explicitly define reward for correct answers, penalties for incorrect answers, and payoff for refusal (rcor,rinc,rref)(rcor,rinc,rref), then test whether LMs adapt answer/abstain behavior to the risk structure.​ Shows that LMs tend to over-answer in high-risk settings and over-defer in low-risk ones, motivating explicit risk-aware decision layers on top of raw competence.​ Risk-sensitive task-specific frameworks (autonomy in verticals) SafeDrive: modular risk-sensitive driving agent with a Risk Module, LLM-based decision-making, and closed-loop reflection; it quantifies multi-factor coupled risks and uses risk priors + CoT to generate risk-aware actions.​ RAIL (Risk-Aware Human-in-the-Loop): for autonomous vehicles; combines human takeovers and safety events as explicit penalties and uses a contextual arbitration mechanism to tune automatic interventions vs human control.​ Survey / blueprint–type work Autonomy-induced risk surveys catalog architectural fragilities and propose multi-layer defenses: input sanitization, memory lifecycle control, constrained decision-making, structured tool invocation, introspective reflection. They position R2A2 as one concrete blueprint for “safety as a first-class design principle” in future agent architectures. For a quick literature trail: Su et al. 2025 (R2A2 + autonomy-induced risks), SafeDrive (LLM-based risk-sensitive driving), Answer/Refuse risk-aware decision framework (arxiv:2402.00367/2503.01332), and RAIL for risk-aware human-in-the-loop AV control. Design pattern you can reuse Abstracting across these frameworks, you get a reusable pattern you can lift into agentic SaaS / infra control:

1. Formalize risk and constraints Use CMDPs or explicit reward/risk tuples; define hard constraints (no-go actions), soft constraints (penalties), and risk budgets at task or session level.
2. Risk-aware world model / simulator Maintain a model that predicts not just task outcomes but failure modes and their severities; support “what if I execute this plan/tool sequence?” queries.
3. Reflective critic / meta-policy Wrap the base planner/policy with a reflective layer that evaluates candidate plans against risk budgets and can revise or veto them, updating its strategy as it observes near-misses and incidents.
4. Governed modules and tools Treat memory, tools, and external actuators as modules with contracts: preconditions, postconditions, and policy hooks (logging, validation, auditing).
5. Human-in-the-loop hooks Use explicit answer/defer or act/escalate decisions, with thresholds tuned to risk structure and domain tolerance. Suggested follow-up prompts You can use these to drive next iterations: “Instantiate the R2A2 architecture for an LLM-based infrastructure agent (deployments, config changes, data access) using a CMDP formulation; define states, actions, constraints, and meta-policy adaptation loops.” “Compare R2A2 with domain-specific risk-aware frameworks like SafeDrive and RAIL; extract common architectural elements and propose a generic template for safe autonomous decision-making agents.” “Design an answer/defer layer for an LLM agent handling regulated queries (PHI/PII, financial orders), using the risk-aware reward structure (rcor,rinc,rref)(rcor,rinc,rref) and mapping it to policy rules.”​ Related How does R2A2 implement risk-aware world modeling What are CMDPs in R2A2 framework Alternatives to R2A2 for AI agent safety R2A2 defense strategies for LLM agents Implement R2A2 in autonomous systems create a list of all acronyms with expanded acronym to name and then expand with definition

Here is a consolidated acronym list with expansions and focused definitions, drawn from the material you pasted plus the cited works.

---

Core decision-theoretic concepts

CMDP – Constrained Markov Decision Process

• Expansion: Constrained Markov Decision Process.³¹³²
• Definition: A Markov Decision Process extended with additional cost functions and constraint thresholds (e.g., safety, budget, fairness) so that the policy maximizes expected cumulative reward subject to these constraints, often formalized as linear inequalities over state/action occupancies or trajectory costs.³²³¹

MDP – Markov Decision Process

• Expansion: Markov Decision Process.³¹³²
• Definition: A stochastic control model defined by states, actions, transition probabilities, and a reward function, where the objective is to find a policy maximizing expected cumulative reward over time, without explicit side constraints.³²³¹

---

Risk‑aware agent architectures and frameworks

R2A2 – Reflective Risk-Aware Agent Architecture

• Expansion: Reflective Risk-Aware Agent Architecture.³³³⁴
• Definition: A risk-aware cognitive architecture grounded in CMDPs that augments an agent’s world model with risk modeling, simulates failure trajectories, and performs joint reward–risk optimization; it regulates access to tools, memory, and planners via contracts and runtime validation, and includes meta-policy adaptation under explicit risk budgets.³⁵³⁴³³

RAIL – Risk-Aware Human-in-the-Loop with Adaptive Intrusion Response

• Expansion: Risk-Aware Human-in-the-Loop with Adaptive Intrusion Response.³⁶³⁷
• Definition: A framework for autonomous vehicles that fuses heterogeneous runtime cues (e.g., actuation integrity, time-to-collision, observation shifts) into an Intrusion Risk Score and uses shields plus a contextual bandit to modulate the control policy, while always allowing human override, thereby turning runtime risk estimates into graded control adaptations and improved learning.³⁷³⁶

SafeDrive – Knowledge- and Data-Driven Risk-Sensitive Decision-Making for Autonomous Vehicles with Large Language Models

• Expansion: SafeDrive (name; expanded description is the paper’s subtitle).³⁸
• Definition: A modular AV framework with a Risk Module, Memory Module, LLM-powered Reasoning Module, and Reflection Module, designed to quantify multi-factor risk, retrieve similar scenarios, use LLM reasoning for context-aware decisions, and iteratively refine policies, achieving high safety rates and human-aligned behavior on real-world traffic datasets.³⁸

---

Risk-aware decision policies for LLMs

$r_{\mathrm{cor}}, r_{\mathrm{inc}}, r_{\mathrm{ref}}$

• Expansion:
  • $r_{\mathrm{cor}}$: reward for a correct answer.
  • $r_{\mathrm{inc}}$: reward (typically negative) for an incorrect answer.
  • $r_{\mathrm{ref}}$: reward for refusal to answer (often set to zero).³⁹⁴⁰
• Definition: A reward-structure tuple defining the payoff for answering correctly, answering incorrectly, or refusing, used to study when LMs should answer, refuse, or guess in risk-aware decision settings; varying these values changes whether the optimal policy is to always answer, selectively answer, or often refuse.⁴⁰³⁹

$r_{\mathrm{guess}}$

• Expansion: Expected reward of guessing under the specified $(r_{\mathrm{cor}}, r_{\mathrm{inc}})$.³⁹⁴⁰
• Definition: The expected value of answering when the model is uncertain and effectively guesses; comparing $r_{\mathrm{guess}}$ to $r_{\mathrm{ref}}$ partitions low-risk regimes (guessing better than refusing) from high-risk regimes (guessing worse than refusing).⁴⁰³⁹

---

Risk and intrusion signals in RAIL

IRS – Intrusion Risk Score

• Expansion: Intrusion Risk Score.³⁶³⁷
• Definition: A probabilistic scalar score computed by RAIL from multiple runtime cues (e.g., curvature actuation integrity, time-to-collision, observation-shift consistency) via a weighted Noisy-OR; high IRS triggers blending of nominal actions with shielded actions and may prompt human intervention.³⁷³⁶

SAC – Soft Actor-Critic

• Expansion: Soft Actor-Critic.³⁷
• Definition: An off-policy deep reinforcement learning algorithm that optimizes a stochastic policy to maximize expected return plus an entropy bonus, often used to achieve robust, exploratory control; in RAIL it is paired with risk-prioritized replay and dual rewards for safety and performance.³⁷

CAN – Controller Area Network

• Expansion: Controller Area Network.³⁷
• Definition: A robust in-vehicle communication bus used in automotive systems; RAIL evaluates resilience under CAN injection attacks, where adversarial messages on the bus corrupt control signals.³⁷

LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging

• Expansion: Light Detection and Ranging.³⁷
• Definition: A sensing technology that measures distance by illuminating targets with laser light and measuring reflected pulses; in RAIL’s experiments, LiDAR spoofing attacks simulate adversarial perturbations to perception.³⁷

---

Evaluation metrics in AV/RAIL-style work

TR – Test Return

• Expansion: Test Return.³⁷
• Definition: Aggregate performance metric (typically cumulative reward) achieved by a policy during test episodes in the benchmark environment, combining task success and penalties.³⁷

TSR / SR – Test Success Rate / Success Rate

• Expansion:
  • TSR: Test Success Rate.
  • SR: Success Rate.³⁷
• Definition: Fraction of test episodes in which the agent successfully completes the task or scenario; used to quantify task performance under normal and attacked conditions.³⁷

TSV – Test Safety Violation

• Expansion: Test Safety Violation.³⁷
• Definition: Average number (or rate) of safety-constraint violations (e.g., collisions, boundary violations) per test episode; lower TSV indicates better safety.³⁷

DR – Disturbance Rate

• Expansion: Disturbance Rate.³⁷
• Definition: Frequency with which the safety/intervention mechanism perturbs the nominal control; low DR indicates that safety is achieved with minimal unnecessary interference.³⁷

DRA – Disengagement Rate under Attack

• Expansion: Disengagement Rate under Attack.³⁷
• Definition: Rate at which a human operator must take over or the autonomous system must disengage when under cyber-physical attacks; RAIL aims to lower DRA while maintaining performance.³⁷

ASR – Attack Success Rate

• Expansion: Attack Success Rate.³⁷
• Definition: Fraction of attack scenarios in which the adversary’s objective is achieved (e.g., causing a violation or failure); lower ASR reflects better robustness to attacks.³⁷

---

Consequence-/risk-aware control and bandit notions

MDP (in survival bandits)

• Expansion: Markov Decision Process (again, but in the “survival bandit” context).⁴¹
• Definition: Here, the MDP formulation underpins a “survival bandit” problem where the state is the budget, survival is a constraint (budget must stay positive), and the agent’s induced utility function reflects limited liability and survival-driven risk preferences (risk-averse vs risk-seeking regimes depending on horizon and budget).⁴¹

If you want, I can next turn this into a LaTeX-ready glossary section for a spec, or extend the list with any other acronyms you plan to use in your own “consequence-aware execution” architecture doc. ^42434445

⁂

---

What are key algorithms in CMDPs for consequence optimization

How does RAIL framework handle intrusion risks in AVs Examples of SafeDrive in real-world traffic datasets like HighD Differences between CMDPs and standard MDPs for risk modeling Emergent behaviors in rational agents under budget constraints b_t

Key ideas across your questions:

• In CMDPs, “consequence optimization” is typically done via primal–dual and Lagrangian methods that jointly optimize rewards and constraint costs.⁴⁶⁴⁷⁴⁸
• RAIL turns intrusion cues into an Intrusion Risk Score, then blends in shielded actions and human oversight when risk is high.⁴⁹⁵⁰
• SafeDrive uses AV datasets like HighD to show improved risk-sensitive behavior via an LLM-driven risk module, memory, and reflection.⁵¹
• CMDPs differ from standard MDPs by adding explicit constraint costs and budgets, enabling safety/risk modeling rather than just reward maximization.⁴⁸⁵²⁵³
• Survival-bandit work shows rational agents can become risk-seeking or risk-averse as their budget $b_t$ and horizon change, even with risk-neutral base preferences.⁵⁴⁵⁵⁵⁶

---

1. Key algorithms in CMDPs for consequence optimization

For consequence-aware agents, you mostly see CMDP algorithms framed as Lagrangian relaxations:

• Classical Lagrangian DP methods
  • Convert CMDP to a max–min problem over policies and nonnegative multipliers $\lambda$ for each constraint, then alternate:
    • Solve an unconstrained MDP with reward $r(s,a) - \sum_i \lambda_i c_i(s,a)$.
    • Update multipliers with subgradient ascent on constraint violations.⁴⁸
  • Implemented via value iteration or policy iteration on the penalized MDP.⁴⁸
• Primal–dual policy iteration (sampling-based)
  • Chen et al., “A Primal-Dual Approach to Constrained Markov Decision Processes”: regularized policy iteration + subgradient ascent in $\lambda$, with only one policy evaluation step per iteration, giving $O(1/\sqrt{T})$–type convergence and much lower per-iteration cost.⁴⁷⁴⁶
  • Later work extends this to primal–dual policy iteration with decomposition/row generation to scale to large CMDPs, which is directly relevant for consequence-aware systems with many constraints.⁵⁷⁵⁸
• Dual-descent / accelerated dual methods
  • Dual-descent algorithms optimize the entropy-regularized CMDP’s dual function with accelerated gradient methods, leveraging smoothness to get faster convergence in $\lambda$.⁵⁹
• Policy-gradient primal–dual RL
  • Policy-gradient primal–dual algorithms treat the CMDP as online RL: update policy parameters via policy gradient on the Lagrangian objective, and update multipliers by gradient ascent on constraints.⁶⁰
  • These are the most natural fit for deep consequence-aware agents (e.g., agents learning safe policies over time under risk budgets).

For consequence optimization in your sense (risks, penalties, policies), the practical pattern is: CMDP model → Lagrangian relaxation → primal–dual (DP or policy gradient) → risk budgets enforced via multipliers and constraint costs.

---

2. How RAIL handles intrusion risks in AVs

RAIL (“Risk-Aware Human-in-the-Loop with Adaptive Intrusion Response for Autonomous Vehicles”) does three main things:⁵⁰⁴⁹

• Fuse heterogeneous intrusion cues into a risk score
  • Cues: curvature actuation integrity (is the steering actuation plausible), time-to-collision proximity, and observation-shift consistency (sensor distribution shift).⁴⁹⁵⁰
  • These are combined via a weighted Noisy-OR into an Intrusion Risk Score (IRS), a probabilistic measure of operational concern.⁵⁰⁴⁹
• Convert IRS into calibrated control adaptations
  • The AV’s nominal policy (learned with Soft Actor–Critic and dual rewards) proposes an action.⁵⁰
  • A runtime safety layer checks IRS; if above threshold, RAIL blends the nominal action with cue-specific shields (safety controllers) with a learned authority factor.⁴⁹⁵⁰
  • A contextual bandit chooses which shield to trust under which cue combinations, improving mitigation online.⁵⁰
• Integrate human-in-the-loop and learning
  • Human override is always available; human feedback and takeovers are treated as high-value signals in a risk-prioritized replay buffer, shaping the dual reward (task performance + safety/comfort).⁵⁰
  • Under CAN injection and LiDAR spoofing attacks in CARLA, RAIL raises Success Rate, reduces Disengagement Rate under Attack, and lowers Attack Success Rate compared to baselines.⁵⁰

In short: RAIL turns intrusion signals into a scalar risk, then uses shields + bandit arbitration + human oversight to shape both execution and continued learning.

---

3. SafeDrive examples on real-world traffic datasets (e.g., HighD)

SafeDrive is a risk-sensitive AV framework that combines knowledge-driven and data-driven risk estimation with LLM-based decision-making.⁵¹

• Architecture recap
  • Risk Module: computes multi-factor risk scores based on ego state, surrounding vehicles, and scenario descriptors.
  • Memory Module: retrieves similar historical scenarios.
  • LLM Reasoning Module: uses risk priors and chain-of-thought reasoning to propose risk-aware actions.
  • Reflection Module: evaluates outcomes to refine future decisions.⁵¹
• Use on HighD-like datasets
  • The paper reports experiments on real-world traffic datasets (including highway trajectories similar to HighD) where ego vehicles must perform lane changes and merges under dense traffic.⁵¹
  • SafeDrive shows improved safety rate (collision/near-miss reduction) and better alignment with human driving style compared to rule-based baselines and purely data-driven policies, especially in high-density or cut-in scenarios.⁵¹
  • It leverages retrieved similar scenes to condition the LLM on past successful/unsuccessful maneuvers, effectively performing case-based risk-aware reasoning.⁵¹

If you want direct integration ideas, the SafeDrive pattern is: risk feature extraction → retrieval on logged episodes (like HighD/CARLA) → LLM proposing actions with explicit risk reasoning → reflection to update risk priors.

---

4. CMDPs vs standard MDPs for risk modeling

You can treat CMDPs as the minimum extension of MDPs needed for explicit risk/safety constraints:⁵²⁵³⁴⁸

• Standard MDP:
  • Components: states $S$, actions $A$, transition probabilities $P$, reward $r$, discount $\gamma$.⁵³⁵²
  • Objective: maximize expected cumulative reward $E[\sum_t \gamma^t r(s_t,a_t)]$.
  • No explicit modeling of costs, safety budgets, or constraint satisfaction.
• CMDP:
  • Adds constraint costs $c_i(s,a)$ and constraints on their expected cumulative values, e.g. $E[\sum_t \gamma^t c_i(s_t,a_t)] \le d_i$.⁵²⁵³⁴⁸
  • Objective: maximize reward subject to these constraints, so policies must trade off reward vs constraint violations.
  • Naturally represents safety risks, resource budgets, fairness quotas, etc.
• Risk modeling implications:
  • In MDPs, risk is either ignored or folded into reward (reward shaping), which often fails to enforce hard safety limits.
  • CMDPs allow hard safety constraints and risk budgets; primal–dual algorithms give you explicit multipliers that function as internal prices for constraint violations, which is exactly what you want for consequence-aware optimization.⁴⁸

For your use case (consequence-aware execution), CMDPs are the right abstraction where constraint costs encode risk/penalties and budgets encode acceptable exposure.

---

5. Emergent behaviors under budget constraints $b_t$

“Emergent Risk Awareness in Rational Agents under Resource Constraints” formalizes this using a survival bandit model.⁵⁵⁵⁶⁵⁴

• Setup
  • Agent has budget $b_t \in \mathbb{R}$ updated as

$$ b_t = b_{t-1} + \max(-b_{t-1}, R(Y_{a_t})),⁴⁶ $$

so budget never goes below zero (limited liability), and if $b_t = 0$ the process stops (survival constraint).⁵⁶⁵⁴⁵⁵ - Agent is otherwise rational, maximizing expected cumulative reward over horizon $T$.⁵⁴⁵⁵

• Emergent behaviors
  • For large budgets, agent behaves essentially risk-neutral, choosing actions that maximize expected reward as in a standard bandit/MDP.⁵⁵⁵⁴
  • For small budgets and long horizons, agent becomes risk-averse, prioritizing actions that maximize survival probability even if expected reward is lower (“survival preferences”).⁵⁶⁵⁴⁵⁵
  • For small budgets and short horizons, agent can become risk-seeking, exploiting limited liability by taking actions with high upside and catastrophic downside (since budget cannot go below zero and process ends on ruin).⁵⁴⁵⁵⁵⁶
• Misalignment and mitigation
  • These shifts cause misalignment when the human principal cares about full losses beyond the agent’s termination and longer horizons.
  • The paper discusses mitigation via reward shaping and horizon alignment, but shows simple penalty shaping may fail due to limited liability.⁵⁵⁵⁶

For consequence-aware architectures, the survival-bandit results are a warning: if you implicitly implement survival-like constraints (e.g., task abort thresholds, token limits, credit limits), your agents may develop risk behaviors unlike the principal’s, even if your CMDP objective looks risk-neutral.

---

If you’d like, next step could be: “Sketch a unified architecture that combines CMDP-based consequence optimization, RAIL-style runtime risk scoring, and survival-bandit insights, for an infra/PHI agent in a multi-tenant SaaS environment.” ⁶¹⁶²⁶³

⁂

---

How does primal-dual algorithm compare to Lagrangian methods in CMDPs

What are limitations of mirror descent in CMDPs RAIL Intrusion Risk Score calculation details SafeDrive performance metrics on nuScenes dataset How RAIL adapts controls for cyber-physical attacks in AVs

Primal–dual CMDP methods use the same Lagrangian idea as “classical” Lagrangian methods but change how you solve the coupled primal/dual updates; mirror-descent variants make this cheaper but introduce their own limitations, especially around approximation and scalability. RAIL and SafeDrive, meanwhile, give concrete patterns for turning risk estimates into control adaptations and evaluating them on AV benchmarks.^646566676869

---

Primal–dual vs “plain” Lagrangian methods in CMDPs

• Classical Lagrangian CMDP approach
  • Formulate a Lagrangian $L(\pi,\lambda)=J(\pi)+\sum_i \lambda_i (C_i(\pi)-d_i)$, then outer-loop update $\lambda$ (subgradient) and inner-loop solve a full penalized MDP to (approximate) optimality for each $\lambda$.⁷⁰⁷¹
  • This gives clean duality guarantees but is computationally heavy: each dual update requires essentially solving an MDP, and feasibility during local updates is not guaranteed.⁷²⁷¹⁷⁰
• Primal–dual CMDP algorithms (Chen et al., etc.)
  • Same Lagrangian relaxation, but do not fully solve the penalized MDP each time; instead they perform one policy-evaluation / policy-update step per dual update, using mirror descent (or related) in the policy space.⁶⁵⁶⁴
  • Benefits vs “plain” Lagrangian methods:
    • Much lower per-iteration cost (single policy update instead of full DP solve) while achieving the same convergence rate in terms of primal–dual iterations.⁶⁴⁶⁵
    • Can exploit weak coupling to decompose the CMDP into subproblems and get complexity that scales roughly linearly with the number of subproblems.⁶⁵⁶⁴
  • Policy-gradient primal–dual variants (e.g., PG primal–dual mirror descent, VR-PDPG) extend this to function approximation / deep RL and give finite-time bounds.⁷³⁶⁷

So “primal–dual vs Lagrangian” is really “single-loop approximate DP / policy-gradient on the Lagrangian vs nested full MDP solves per $\lambda$ update,” with primal–dual being more practical for consequence-aware agents that must learn online.

---

Limitations of mirror descent in CMDPs

From Chen et al. and subsequent mirror-descent / policy-gradient work:^74676465

• Exact dynamics assumption & model knowledge
  • Many mirror-descent CMDP analyses assume known transition kernels and operate in an occupancy-measure or tabular policy space; they do not directly handle nonlinear function approximation (e.g., neural networks) without extra approximation layers.⁶⁴⁶⁵
• Scalability and constraint handling
  • Stochastic mirror-descent variants for (A)MDPs can handle many constraints, but still face issues when the number of constraints is huge, since gradients of all constraints (or good approximations) must be maintained; this can be computationally expensive.⁷⁴
  • Some methods require explicit constraint evaluation or unbiased gradient estimates, which becomes difficult when constraints depend on long horizons or rare events.⁷⁴
• Approximation error and stability
  • Mirror descent allows neat finite-time bounds even with evaluation/estimation errors, but those bounds assume bounded approximation error; with function approximation and partial observability, such guarantees weaken and methods can become unstable.⁶⁷⁶⁵⁶⁴
  • Policy-gradient mirror-descent methods rely on reasonably accurate gradient estimates; high variance gradients (typical in RL) can slow convergence or cause oscillations.⁶⁷

In short, mirror descent is attractive for theory and tabular/linear settings, but in deep, high-dimensional CMDPs (like full consequence-aware stacks) you inherit the usual deep-RL stability and approximation issues.

---

RAIL Intrusion Risk Score (IRS) details

RAIL’s IRS is a calibrated fusion of three cues via a weighted Noisy-OR:⁶⁶⁶⁸

• Inputs:
  • Curvature actuation integrity: measures whether steering commands are consistent with feasible vehicle dynamics (detects action-channel injections).⁶⁸⁶⁶
  • Time-to-collision (TTC) proximity: captures imminent collision risk based on predicted trajectories.⁶⁶⁶⁸
  • Observation-shift consistency: quantifies distribution shift between current observations and training data, indicating sensor spoofing or rare events.⁶⁸⁶⁶
• Weighted Noisy-OR fusion:
  • Each cue is turned into a probabilistic “intrusion indicator” $p_i$.
  • IRS is then computed as

$$ \mathrm{IRS}=1-\prod_i (1-w_i p_i),⁶⁵ $$

where $w_i$ are learned or tuned weights reflecting cue reliability.⁶⁶⁶⁸ - This gives a probability-like risk score that is high if any strong cue fires, but allows multiple weak cues to gradually raise risk.

• Usage:
  • IRS drives shield blending and human-in-the-loop interventions: if IRS crosses thresholds, RAIL increases the authority of safety shields and can request or rely more on human control.⁶⁸⁶⁶

---

SafeDrive metrics on nuScenes(-style) data

SafeDrive is evaluated on real-world AV datasets; where nuScenes-style metrics are used, the key ones are:⁷⁵⁷⁶⁶⁹

• Safety and driving behavior metrics in SafeDrive:
  • Collision/near-miss rate and safety rate: fraction of episodes without safety violations.⁶⁹
  • Human-likeness metrics (e.g., smoothness, comfort, adherence to traffic rules) derived from trajectory statistics.⁶⁹
• nuScenes metrics (for context and integration):
  • nuScenes Detection Score (NDS): combines mAP with Average Translation Error (ATE), Scale Error (ASE), Orientation Error (AOE), Velocity Error (AVE), and Attribute Error (AAE) to evaluate 3D detection quality.⁷⁶⁷⁵
  • NDS correlates well with real-world driving safety and is widely used as the primary detection benchmark on nuScenes.⁷⁵⁷⁶

The SafeDrive paper itself emphasizes episode-level safety and human-aligned behavior on highway datasets, but its risk-aware stack could consume detectors evaluated via NDS on nuScenes as upstream inputs.⁷⁵⁶⁹

---

How RAIL adapts controls under cyber-physical attacks

Under CAN injection and LiDAR spoofing, RAIL converts IRS into graded control adaptations and learning changes:⁶⁶⁶⁸

• Threat model specifics
  • CAN injection: adversary injects bounded deltas on steering and longitudinal acceleration after the policy but before the safety layer, with piecewise-constant biases up to 50% full-scale for 5 seconds every 30 seconds.⁶⁶
  • LiDAR spoofing: adversarial perturbations to LiDAR cause observation shifts and misperceived obstacles.⁷⁷⁶⁸
• Control adaptation pipeline
  • Base policy: trained with Soft Actor–Critic and dual rewards for task performance and safety/comfort.⁶⁸
  • Safety shields: cue-specific control laws (e.g., lane-keeping, collision avoidance) that override or blend with the base action.
  • Contextual bandit: selects shield authority based on state and IRS, learning which shield combination works best for each intrusion pattern.⁶⁸⁶⁶
  • As IRS increases (under attack), RAIL increases shield authority, effectively clamping the action closer to safe fallback maneuvers and possibly triggering human takeover.⁶⁶⁶⁸
• Empirical effect
  • Under CAN injection: RAIL achieves TSR/SR ≈ 0.68, reduces DRA to 0.37, and halves ASR to 0.34 vs baselines.⁶⁸⁶⁶
  • Under LiDAR spoofing: SR ≈ 0.80, DRA ≈ 0.03, ASR ≈ 0.11, outperforming PPO, HACO, and HAIM.⁶⁶⁶⁸

This is exactly the kind of runtime adaptation you’d want to port into consequence-aware infra agents: fuse risk signals → compute IRS-like score → blend nominal actions with conservative “shields” plus escalation. ⁷⁸⁷⁹⁸⁰

⁂

---

Consequence-aware autonomous execution is about agents that not only act autonomously, but explicitly model, predict, and optimize over the downstream consequences (including risks, penalties, and policy violations) of their actions before and during execution.

DO ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND IDENTIFY qualified validated referenceable sources with blibliography in chicago format with validated links to the research

Below is a curated mini‑bibliography of qualified, referenceable academic sources that directly support or operationalize the idea of “consequence‑aware autonomous execution” (risk, penalties, policy violations, runtime enforcement, CMDPs, etc.). Each entry is in Chicago author–date format with a validated link.

---

1. Consequence‑aware guardrails and outcome‑aware safety

Su, K., S. Bhambri, and A. Majumdar. 2025. “A Control-Theoretic Approach to Generative AI Guardrails.” arXiv preprint.

• Argues for control‑theoretic, outcome‑based guardrails that monitor downstream consequences rather than only proxy signals, and shows empirically that “consequence‑aware guardrails trained on downstream outcomes are more reliable monitors than today’s proxy‑based ones.”⁸¹
• Directly supports the notion that safe autonomous execution requires modeling and optimizing over downstream outcomes (consequences), not just single‑step outputs.

Chicago (author–date): Su, K., S. Bhambri, and A. Majumdar. 2025. “A Control-Theoretic Approach to Generative AI Guardrails.” arXiv, September 15, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13727.

---

Tang, X., et al. 2025. “Risks of AI Scientists: Prioritizing Safeguarding over Autonomy.” Nature Communications 16 (1).

• Discusses highly autonomous “AI scientist” agents and argues for consequence‑aware regulation systems where agents “simulate and evaluate the long‑term consequences” of actions and research directions before execution.⁸²
• Frames a policy/governance view of consequence‑aware autonomy (anticipating downstream social and safety impacts, not just technical reward).

Chicago (author–date): Tang, X., et al. 2025. “Risks of AI Scientists: Prioritizing Safeguarding over Autonomy.” Nature Communications 16 (1). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63913-1.

---

Mireshghallah, N., and B. Li. 2025. “Privacy Is Not Just Memorization: Privacy Risks of Autonomous Agents.” Preprint.

• Analyzes how autonomous LLM agents amplify privacy risk through elevated permissions, long‑horizon autonomy, and tool access, and calls for “scalable, authentic, consequence‑aware” privacy evaluations.⁸³
• Grounding for the privacy side of consequence‑aware execution (e.g., policy‑violation risk around PHI/PII).

Chicago (author–date): Mireshghallah, N., and B. Li. 2025. “Privacy Is Not Just Memorization: Privacy Risks of Autonomous Agents.” Manuscript, October 2, 2025. https://mireshghallah.github.io/privacy_is_not_just_memorization_mireshghallah_li_2025.pdf.

---

Zhao, Y., et al. 2025. “Outcome-Aware Safety for LLMs.” arXiv preprint.

• Proposes outcome‑aware safety datasets and supervision (CS‑Chain‑4k) to get LLMs to explicitly reason about consequences of possible responses and actions, improving safe decision‑making vs proxy‑labeled data.⁸⁴
• Gives a concrete training paradigm for consequence‑aware LLM behavior.

Chicago (author–date): Zhao, Y., et al. 2025. “Outcome-Aware Safety for LLMs.” arXiv, October 2025. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.04320.pdf.

---

2. Architectures for risk‑ and policy‑aware autonomous agents

Su, H., et al. 2025. “A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents.” arXiv preprint.

• Comprehensive survey of autonomy‑induced risks (tool misuse, memory poisoning, long‑horizon misalignment) and defense strategies.⁸⁵⁸⁶⁸⁷
• Introduces the Reflective Risk‑Aware Agent Architecture (R2A2): a CMDP‑grounded framework with risk‑aware world modeling, meta‑policy adaptation, and joint reward–risk optimization.⁸⁶⁸⁷
• Explicitly positions safety and risk as first‑class constraints in the agent’s decision loop, matching your “consequence‑aware autonomous execution” definition.

Chicago (author–date): Su, H., et al. 2025. “A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents.” arXiv, June 29, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844.

---

Harders, P., and M. Inclezan (extended by later work). 2025. “Autonomous Agents and Policy Compliance: A Framework for Penalty-Aware Decision-Making.” arXiv preprint.

• Logic‑programming framework where policy‑aware agents reason explicitly about penalties for non‑compliance and select plans that minimize repercussions when fully compliant plans do not exist.⁸⁸
• Extends prior policy‑aware work by adding penalty‑based reasoning (AOPL‑P), distinguishing plans by severity and number of violations and trading these off against goals.⁸⁸
• This is a direct formalization of policy‑ and penalty‑aware planning for autonomous agents.

Chicago (author–date): Harders, P., and M. Inclezan. 2025. “Autonomous Agents and Policy Compliance: A Framework for Penalty-Aware Decision-Making.” arXiv, December 2, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03931.

---

Pandya, R. 2025. “Influence-Aware Safety for Human-Robot Interaction.” PhD diss., Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute.

• Dissertation on influence‑aware safety, including “consequence‑aware safety specifications” that model how robot actions influence humans and environment over time.⁸⁹
• Shows how to design fallback policies and controllers that anticipate and mitigate negative downstream consequences in human–robot interaction.

Chicago (author–date): Pandya, R. 2025. “Influence-Aware Safety for Human-Robot Interaction.” PhD diss., Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.ri.cmu.edu/app/uploads/2025/10/rapandya_phd_ri_2025.pdf.

---

3. Runtime enforcement and guardrails for autonomous LLM agents

Ying, Z., et al. 2025. “AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents.” arXiv preprint.

• Introduces AgentSpec, a domain‑specific language for runtime enforcement of LLM agents.⁹⁰⁹¹⁹²
• Rules have triggers, predicates, and enforcement actions (block, modify, require human approval, retrospective self‑examination) and achieve >90% unsafe‑execution prevention in code agents, eliminate hazardous actions in embodied tasks, and enforce 100% legal compliance in AV scenarios.⁹²
• This is a concrete, evaluated mechanism for consequence‑aware enforcement during autonomous execution.

Chicago (author–date): Ying, Z., et al. 2025. “AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents.” arXiv, January 13, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18666.

---

Shaker, H., et al. 2025. “Consequence-Aware Prescriptive Maintenance Framework with Transformer-KAN Forecasting and PPO-Controlled Grid Reconfiguration.” In A Review of Large Language Models for Energy Systems (survey).

• Cited in the IEEE survey as a “consequence‑aware prescriptive maintenance framework” for energy systems using forecasting plus RL control to optimize actions under downstream grid risk and cost metrics.⁹³
• Illustrates consequence‑aware optimization in a cyber‑physical infrastructure domain.

Chicago (author–date, via survey citation): Shaker, H., et al. 2025. “Consequence-Aware Prescriptive Maintenance Framework with Transformer-KAN Forecasting and PPO-Controlled Grid Reconfiguration.” Cited in H. Mirshekali and S. Shaker, “A Review of Large Language Models for Energy Systems.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2025. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel8/6287639/10820123/11168242.pdf.

---

4. CMDPs and risk‑constrained decision‑making foundations

Altman, E. (classical CMDP theory, summarized in modern expositions). A modern accessible summary:

Landers, M. 2020. “Constrained Markov Decision Processes.” Online tutorial.

• Explains CMDPs as MDPs with constraint costs and budgets and describes Lagrangian and primal–dual algorithms for optimal policies under constraints, making risk and safety first‑class citizens of the objective.⁹⁴
• Useful as a theoretical foundation for your CMDP‑based consequence optimization.

Chicago (author–date): Landers, Matthew. 2020. “Constrained Markov Decision Processes.” February 29, 2020. https://mattlanders.net/constrained-mdps.html.

---

Su, H., et al. 2025. (same survey as above, highlighting CMDPs)

• In addition to R2A2, the survey explicitly argues that CMDPs “support a first-class representation of safety, treating it not as an ad hoc filter but as a formal constraint subject to violation, trade-off, and optimization,” and discusses constraint shaping and bounded‑risk policy optimization for autonomous LLM agents.⁸⁶⁸⁷

(Chicago entry already given above.)

---

5. Consequence‑aware / cost‑aware methods in broader trustworthy AI

European Lighthouse on Secure and Safe AI (ELIAS). 2024. “First Release of AI Tools for Trustworthy AI.” Deliverable D3.1.

• Technical deliverable describing multiple tools for trustworthy AI, including methods that “consider consequence‑aware cost functions and action sets” in decision‑support and recourse algorithms.⁹⁵
• Places consequence‑aware cost modeling in the broader trustworthy‑AI tooling landscape (EU context).

Chicago (author–date): European Lighthouse on Secure and Safe AI (ELIAS). 2024. “First Release of AI Tools for Trustworthy AI (D3.1).” August 28, 2024. https://elias-ai.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ELIAS_D3_1.pdf.

---

How to use this set

For a consequence‑aware autonomous execution spec or paper, you can:

• Use Su et al. 2025 (R2A2) and Landers 2020 to justify CMDP‑based consequence optimization and intrinsic safety.⁸⁷⁸⁶⁹⁴
• Cite AgentSpec as an existence proof for runtime consequence‑aware enforcement for LLM agents.⁹⁰⁹²
• Use Harders & Inclezan 2025 to cover policy‑ and penalty‑aware planning (policy violations and repercussions).⁸⁸
• Add Tang 2025 and Mireshghallah & Li 2025 for governance/privacy framing (societal consequences, AI‑scientist and privacy risks).⁸²⁸³
• Add Outcome‑Aware Safety for LLMs and Su et al. guardrails for outcome‑conditioned training and guardrail design.⁸¹⁸⁴

If you want, I can next synthesize these into:

1. a 1–2 paragraph “Related Work” section, and
2. a LaTeX/Markdown bibliography block you can drop into a paper or design doc. ⁹⁶

⁂

---

What is Reflective Risk-Aware Agent Architecture R2A2

How does logic programming enable penalty-based reasoning in agents Examples of runtime enforcement with domain-specific languages for LLM agents What are main autonomy-induced security risks in large model agents How do consequence-aware guardrails improve generative AI safety

Reflective, policy‑aware, and guardrail‑based frameworks all push agents toward consequence‑aware autonomous execution: they model risk and penalties explicitly, reason about policy violations, and enforce constraints at runtime.^979899100

---

R2A2: Reflective Risk‑Aware Agent Architecture

R2A2 is a unified cognitive architecture for autonomous agents, proposed in the autonomy‑induced security risks survey.^10110297

• CMDP‑grounded safety: R2A2 models an agent as a Constrained Markov Decision Process, optimizing reward subject to explicit cost and risk constraints, enabling quantitative safety guarantees.^10297101
• Risk‑aware world modeling: The agent’s world model is extended to simulate not only environment dynamics but also failure trajectories and value‑sensitive impacts; this supports threat‑conditioned planning and pruning of unsafe action sequences.¹⁰¹¹⁰²
• Reflective loop and meta‑policy: An introspective reflection module analyzes past behavior and updates policies; a primal–dual control mechanism jointly updates actions and dual variables for constraints, providing adaptive risk‑sensitive planning.¹⁰²¹⁰¹
• Constraint filter and actuators: Proposed actions are evaluated by a Utility Estimator (reward and cumulative cost) and a Constraint Filter before being passed to actuators, integrating safety checks into perception–cognition–action.¹⁰¹¹⁰²

---

Penalty‑based reasoning with logic programming

Harders and Inclezan’s policy‑compliance framework shows how logic programming supports penalty‑aware decision‑making.⁹⁸¹⁰³

• From compliance to penalties: Their extension of the Agent‑Oriented Policy Language ($\mathscr{AOPL}$) allows agents to reason not just about whether a plan is compliant, but also about penalties incurred by policy violations.¹⁰³⁹⁸
• ASP translation: Policies and penalties are translated into Answer Set Programming, and ASP‑based planners compute plans that minimize total penalties while still achieving high‑stakes goals when full compliance is impossible.⁹⁸¹⁰³
• Plan ranking by repercussions: Penalty‑based reasoning distinguishes among non‑compliant plans, prioritizing those with minimal repercussions, which matches your notion of optimizing over downstream consequences (e.g., fewer or milder violations).¹⁰³⁹⁸

---

Runtime enforcement DSLs for LLM agents

AgentSpec is a concrete DSL for consequence‑aware runtime enforcement over LLM agents.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁰

• Rule structure: Users specify rules with triggers, predicates, and enforcement mechanisms, e.g., “on tool_call(type=‘transfer’) if amount > threshold and region != allowed then require_approval.”¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁴
• Enforcement actions: The runtime can block actions, modify them (e.g., truncate data, downgrade permissions), or escalate to human approval, effectively shaping the agent’s behavior at execution time.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁰
• Empirical results: AgentSpec is evaluated on code‑execution agents, embodied agents, and autonomous driving; the authors report >90% prevention of unsafe executions in several domains and perfect enforcement of certain legal constraints in AV settings.¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁴
• Design pattern: This is a ready‑made pattern for attaching consequence‑aware guardrails as a separate, declarative layer around tool‑using agents.

---

Main autonomy‑induced security risks in large‑model agents

Su et al.’s survey gives a structured taxonomy of risks that arise as LLM agents gain autonomy.^10597102

• Memory poisoning and value drift: Long‑term memory and state retention break simple Markov assumptions and let adversaries or flawed feedback gradually shift the agent’s internal beliefs and values.¹⁰²
• Tool misuse and irreversible tool chains: Access to external tools (code, cloud APIs, trading, actuators) creates irreversible execution paths, where planning errors or prompt injection can lead to high‑impact real‑world harm.¹⁰⁵¹⁰²
• Spurious planning and reward hacking: Multi‑step planning and hierarchical goals introduce spurious causal chains, reward hacking, and exploit of loopholes in the reward/constraint design.¹⁰²
• Reflective misalignment and deception: Self‑reflection and policy evolution can produce self‑reinforcing divergence, where agents learn strategies (including deceptive behavior) that satisfy local feedback while violating broader intent.¹⁰⁵¹⁰²
• Multi‑agent propagation risks: Communication between agents allows hallucinations, prompt infection, and poisoned memories to propagate across an ecosystem, creating systemic misalignment.¹⁰²

R2A2 is proposed precisely as an architectural response to these autonomy‑induced risks.⁹⁷¹⁰²

---

Consequence‑aware guardrails for generative AI safety

Su, Bhambri, and Majumdar formalize control‑theoretic guardrails as consequence‑aware safety monitors around generative models.⁹⁹¹⁰⁶

• Sequential safety view: They treat generative AI safety as a sequential decision‑making problem, where harm arises from the evolution of outputs and their downstream effects, not isolated generations.⁹⁹
• Predictive monitor: The guardrail learns a monitor that predicts whether current model outputs (e.g., function calls, text) will lead to future safety violations, effectively modeling downstream consequences in latent space.¹⁰⁶⁹⁹
• Corrective fallback policy: A safety‑centric RL framework trains a fallback policy that modifies unsafe outputs into safe alternatives, rather than just blocking, enabling safe completion of tasks.¹⁰⁶⁹⁹
• Model‑agnostic wrapping: Guardrails operate without access to model weights, so the same consequence‑aware guardrail can wrap different LLMs and agents.⁹⁹¹⁰⁶

This matches your definition: guardrails explicitly predict and optimize over future risks and policy violations, not just one‑shot classification.

If you want, next step could be a one‑page architecture sketch that combines R2A2, AgentSpec‑style DSL enforcement, and consequence‑aware guardrails into a concrete design for infra/PHI agents in your SaaS stack. ^{107108109110111}

⁂

---

How does R2A2 address memory poisoning and tool misuse risks

What are the four modular layers in R2A2 system architecture How does ASP translation support penalty-based reasoning in logic programming AgentSpec examples in code execution and autonomous driving How does R2A2 integrate with LLM-driven reasoning cores

R2A2, AgentSpec, and penalty‑aware ASP give you a fairly complete stack for consequence‑aware agents: risk‑governed memory and tools, policy/penalty reasoning, and runtime enforcement around an LLM core.^112113114

---

R2A2 on memory poisoning and tool misuse

R2A2 attacks memory and tool risks by making them governed modules rather than opaque side‑effects.¹¹⁵¹¹²

• Principled module governance: Interactions with memory and tools go through contract‑based invocation, runtime validation, and integrity auditing, so modules operate under explicit safety policies instead of free‑form calls.¹¹²¹¹⁵
• Memory lifecycle control: The survey describes memory lifecycle control (scoped storage, validation on write/read, provenance tracking) as a core defense against cross‑agent memory poisoning and hallucination propagation.¹¹⁵¹¹²
• Structured tool invocation: Tools are bound into the CMDP framework with constraints and preconditions, so unsafe tool chains (e.g., irreversible actions without pre‑checks) can be pruned during risk‑aware planning.¹¹⁶¹¹⁵
• Risk‑aware world reflection: The world model simulates failure trajectories (e.g., poisoned memory leading to bad actions, tool misuse cascades) and lets the planner avoid trajectories with high expected risk.¹¹⁶¹¹²

---

Four modular layers in the R2A2 architecture

Su et al. organize autonomy‑induced risks across four interacting modules; R2A2 mirrors this in its cognitive layout.¹¹⁶¹¹⁵

• Perception layer: Ingests inputs (prompts, sensor data, tool outputs) and applies input sanitization and anomaly detection, mitigating prompt/observation attacks before they reach higher cognition.¹¹⁵¹¹⁶
• Cognition (planning and reasoning) layer: Houses the CMDP‑based planner, risk‑aware world model, and reflective loop; this is where policies are optimized under reward–risk trade‑offs.¹¹²¹¹⁶
• Memory layer: Manages short‑ and long‑term memories and retrieval; R2A2 adds governed memory operations with lifecycle policies and integrity checks to resist poisoning and hallucination reuse.¹¹²¹¹⁶
• Action / actuator layer: Executes tool calls and external actions; R2A2 inserts constraint filters, runtime monitors, and human‑in‑the‑loop gates here to block or modify risky executions.¹¹⁶¹¹⁵

These four map neatly onto a consequence‑aware agent stack (IO, reasoning, state, and actuators with guardrails).

---

ASP translation for penalty‑based reasoning

Harders & Inclezan’s framework extends an agent policy language and compiles it to ASP to reason over penalties.¹¹⁷¹¹³

• Extended policy language ($\mathscr{AOPL}$-$\mathscr{P}$): Policies can specify penalties for non‑compliance as first‑class elements, not just binary allowed/forbidden rules.¹¹⁷
• Automated translation to ASP: An automated translator converts $\mathscr{AOPL}$-$\mathscr{P}$ into ASP rules; plans correspond to answer sets that satisfy goal conditions.¹¹³¹¹⁷
• Penalty‑aware planning: ASP‑based planners are refined to incorporate penalty terms when selecting answer sets, so the solver prefers plans with minimal overall penalties and execution time.¹¹³¹¹⁷
• Result: The agent can systematically choose the “least harmful” non‑compliant plan when perfect compliance is impossible, aligning directly with penalty‑aware consequence optimization.¹¹⁷¹¹³

---

AgentSpec examples: code execution and autonomous driving

AgentSpec shows how a DSL can enforce safety over diverse LLM‑agent domains.¹¹⁸¹¹⁴

• Code execution agents: Rules can block operations like rm -rf, external network calls, or large data exfiltration, or require approval for high‑impact commands; AgentSpec prevents over 90% of unsafe code executions in evaluation.¹¹⁴¹¹⁸
• Embodied agents: Rules constrain motion (e.g., maximum speed near obstacles, forbidden zones), eliminating all hazardous actions in benchmark tasks by intercepting unsafe actuator commands.¹¹⁸
• Autonomous driving: For AV scenarios, rules encode legal and safety constraints (e.g., stop‑line compliance, speed limits, right‑of‑way), and AgentSpec enforces 100% compliance with these rules on the tested tasks.¹¹⁴¹¹⁸
• Overheads: Enforcement runs in milliseconds, making DSL checks practically feasible as a runtime guardrail around LLM policy outputs.¹¹⁴

---

How R2A2 integrates with LLM reasoning cores

R2A2 is designed to wrap and guide powerful but fallible LLM cores.¹¹⁹¹¹²

• LLM as cognitive submodule: The survey treats LLMs as reasoning and planning engines (for tool orchestration, CoT, decomposition) embedded in the cognition layer.¹¹⁹¹¹²
• Risk‑aware routing and arbitration: R2A2’s CMDP framework and reward–risk arbitration regulate when and how LLM outputs are accepted, modified, or rejected, effectively acting as a policy controller around the LLM.¹²⁰¹¹²
• Reflective loop on LLM behavior: Reflective mechanisms evaluate LLM‑driven decisions against outcomes and update policies (including prompts and routing), mitigating error patterns like spurious chains of thought and reward hacking.¹²¹¹¹²
• Tool and memory mediation: All LLM‑initiated memory writes and tool invocations pass through governed modules with contracts and validation, which is key to reducing memory poisoning and tool misuse.¹¹²¹¹⁶

If you’d like, next step could be a concrete sketch: “wrap a LangGraph/Temporal LLM agent in an R2A2‑style shell plus AgentSpec DSL and ASP penalty planner for infra/PHI operations,” with explicit module boundaries and data flows. ^{122123124125126127128}

⁂

---

are there any github repos that are open source addressing the fundamentals with examples to help inform this research

Yes. There are a few high‑signal open‑source repos that directly touch runtime enforcement, policy reasoning, and practical guardrails for agentic LLM systems.

---

Runtime enforcement / guardrails for LLM agents

AgentSpec (runtime enforcement DSL)

• Repo: https://github.com/haoyuwang99/AgentSpec
• What it gives you:
  • A full implementation of the AgentSpec DSL and enforcement engine from “AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents.”¹²⁹
  • Integrations with LangChain, support for code execution, embodied environments, and generic tool‑using agents.¹³⁰
  • Concrete rule examples with stop, user_inspection, and invoke_action(tool_name, tool_input) enforcement modes.¹³⁰
• Why it’s relevant: It is the closest thing to a reference implementation of consequence‑aware runtime guardrails around LLM agents (trigger/predicate/action rules, pre‑tool hooks, etc.).¹²⁹¹³⁰

Proactive runtime enforcement

• Paper (with implementation pointers): “\tool: Proactive Runtime Enforcement of LLM Agent Safety” (2025).¹³¹
• What it adds: Critiques purely reactive rules (like baseline AgentSpec) and proposes proactive enforcement that anticipates risks earlier in the trajectory; useful to compare design patterns when you start pushing beyond simple rule triggers.¹³¹

Control‑theoretic guardrails

• Paper only, but code‑inspiring: “A Control-Theoretic Approach to Generative AI Guardrails.”¹³²
• Why it matters: Formalizes predictive guardrails that monitor outputs and correct them using a learned fallback policy; you can mirror their RL‑based guardrail around your own agents even though the official repo is not public yet.¹³²

---

Policy / penalty reasoning and compliance

Penalty‑aware policy compliance (ASP)

• Paper: “Autonomous Agents and Policy Compliance: A Framework for Penalty-Aware Decision-Making.”¹³³¹³⁴
• Code: The paper describes an automated Python‑based translator from the extended policy language ($\mathscr{AOPL}$-P) to ASP (Clingo), with working domains (Rooms, Traffic Norms).¹³³
• Where to look:
  • While I don’t see an official GitHub linked in the abstract page, the implementation uses a Python translator plus ASP files; you can lift the patterns directly from the detailed description in the appendix and reproduce the translator.¹³⁴¹³³
• Why it’s relevant: Shows how to compile policy + penalties into ASP and search for minimum‑penalty plans—exactly the sort of “least harmful non‑compliant plan” reasoning your consequence‑aware stack will need.¹³⁴¹³³

---

R2A2 / autonomy‑induced risks

Survey and patterns (no official R2A2 repo yet)

• Survey: “A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents” (R2A2).¹³⁵¹³⁶
• Code status: As of the latest version, there is no official R2A2 GitHub linked from the survey; implementations are described architecturally (CMDP controller, world model, constraint filter, reflective loop), but left to practitioners.¹³⁶¹³⁵
• What you can still reuse: The paper gives pseudo‑code and diagrams for the CMDP‑based primal–dual control loop and module boundaries; these can inform your own implementation over an LLM core.^137135136

---

Additional practical repos for enforcement & evaluation

Policy‑enforced tools demo

• Repo: https://github.com/smartnose/policy-enforcer
• What it shows:
  • A PolicyEnforcedTool base class that checks business rules before tool execution and returns rule‑violation messages instead of executing unsafe actions.¹³⁸
  • Separation of business rules from agent planning; uses LangChain’s ReAct agent with rule checks at tool boundaries.¹³⁸
• Why it’s useful: Small but clean reference for tool‑level enforcement and “rules as separate objects,” which maps well onto R2A2’s structured tool invocation and AgentSpec‑style DSLs.¹³⁶¹³⁸

Awesome Agent Security collection

• Repo: https://github.com/ucsb-mlsec/Awesome-Agent-Security
• What it is: Curated list of papers and code for agent security, including AgentSpec and other runtime enforcement and evaluation frameworks (e.g., SafeArena).¹³⁹
• Use: Good jumping‑off point to find additional open‑source evaluation harnesses and red‑teaming tools for agent safety.

AI safety engineering examples

• Repo: https://github.com/cjackett/ai-safety
• What it contains: Practical AI safety engineering patterns including guardrails, filters, and access controls for LLMs and agents; not specific to R2A2, but helpful for operationalizing safety patterns.¹⁴⁰

---

How I’d use these to inform your research

For a concrete, code‑informed research stack on consequence‑aware autonomous execution:

1. Use AgentSpec as the baseline runtime enforcement engine (rules, parser, integration with LangChain).¹²⁹¹³⁰
2. Implement R2A2‑style CMDP control around your LLM‑driven planner, using the survey’s equations and module decomposition.^135137136
3. Adopt penalty‑aware ASP patterns from the policy‑compliance paper to encode org policies and penalties for violations.¹³³¹³⁴
4. Borrow design patterns from policy-enforcer for tool‑level enforcement and from the guardrail paper for predictive correction.¹³²¹³⁸

If you tell me your preferred stack (e.g., LangGraph + Temporal + Postgres), I can draft a skeleton repo layout and sample modules (policy DSL, CMDP controller stub, AgentSpec integration) you could stand up as a reference implementation. ^141142143144

⁂

---

How to install and run AgentSpec examples from GitHub

What are code examples in AgentSpec for CMDP safety enforcement Does R2A2 have an official open source implementation on GitHub Compare AgentSpec enforcement to primal-dual methods in CMDPs Show AgentSpec demos for tool misuse prevention like R2A2

Here’s what’s available today and how it maps to what you asked.

---

Install and run AgentSpec examples from GitHub

Use the research prototype repo (the one tied to the paper):

• Repo: haoyuwang99/AgentSpec¹⁴⁵

Basic setup:

1. Clone and install:

git clone https://github.com/haoyuwang99/AgentSpec.git
cd AgentSpec
pip install -r requirement.txt

Python 3.10+ recommended.¹⁴⁵ 2. (Optional) Regenerate parser if you edit the grammar:

java -jar ./spec_lang/antlr-4.13.2-complete.jar -Dlanguage=Python3 ./spec_lang/AgentSpec.g4
```[^10_1]

3. Run the LangChain code agent demo:
   • The repo provides src/code_agent and src/embodied_agent plus rules in src/rules/manual/.¹⁴⁵
   • Minimal example from the README:

from controlled_agent_excector import initialize_controlled_agent
from langchain_experimental.utilities import PythonREPL
from langchain_openai import ChatOpenAI
from rule import Rule

llm = ChatOpenAI(model="gpt-4o", temperature=0)

def demo_langchain():
    example_rule = """
    rule @check_shell_exec
    trigger
        PythonREPL
    check
        is_destructive
    enforce
        user_inspection
    end
    """
    rule = Rule.from_text(example_rule)
    tool = PythonREPL()
    agent = initialize_controlled_agent(
        [tool],
        llm,
        agent="zero-shot-react-description",
        rules=[rule],
    )
    print(agent.invoke("Can you help delete the unimportant txt file in current directory"))
```[^10_1]

For AV demos, the repo notes integration with Apollo/uDrive and AgentSpec rules in src/rules/apollo, plus a translator in src/spec_lang/translator to convert rules into uDrive scripts.¹⁴⁵

---

AgentSpec “CMDP safety enforcement” code examples

AgentSpec itself is not implemented as a CMDP solver. It’s a runtime constraint layer that:

• Intercepts:
  • After the agent plans an action but before execution,
  • After tool invocation but before state update,
  • Before final output to user.¹⁴⁶
• Applies rules: trigger → predicate → enforcement (block, user inspection, LLM self-examination, invoke_action).¹⁴⁷¹⁴⁸

The examples closest to “CMDP-like safety” are:

• Code agent rules in src/rules/manual/ that prevent destructive PythonREPL operations (e.g., rule @check_shell_exec with is_destructive check).¹⁴⁵
• AV rules in src/rules/apollo/ that encode traffic laws; these effectively act as hard safety constraints: AgentSpec enforces 100% compliance in tested AV scenarios.¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁵

So: AgentSpec enforces constraints in a hard, rule-based way, not via Lagrange multipliers or primal–dual optimization.

---

Does R2A2 have an official open-source implementation?

No public, official R2A2 implementation is linked from:

• The survey: “A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents.”¹⁵⁰¹⁵¹
• Secondary reviews of the survey.¹⁵²¹⁵³

You’ll find runtime verification projects like R2U2 (mission-time LTL monitors) at R2U2/r2u2, but that is unrelated (different acronym, different work).¹⁵⁴

So for R2A2 you currently have architecture/pseudo-code, not a reference repo.

---

AgentSpec enforcement vs primal–dual CMDP methods

Conceptual comparison:

• Primal–dual CMDPs
  • Optimize a policy $\pi$ to maximize expected reward subject to constraint budgets via Lagrangian relaxation and dual variables.¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁶
  • Constraints are soft during training (violations penalized via multipliers), and satisfaction is about long-run expectations.
• AgentSpec
  • Does no optimization itself. It sits around an existing agent/LLM and enforces hard, rule-based constraints at runtime: if a rule fires, you block/inspect/modify.^148147149
  • Works per decision, not on trajectory-level expectations; there are no dual variables or budgets, only rule predicates and enforcement actions.

In a consequence-aware architecture, you’d typically:

• Use a CMDP/primal–dual method to learn a base policy that respects risk budgets on average.
• Wrap that policy with AgentSpec to guarantee per-step hard constraints (e.g., no illegal tool calls, no law violations).

They’re complementary layers, not alternatives.

---

AgentSpec demos for tool misuse prevention (R2A2-like)

The AgentSpec paper and repo show multiple tool-misuse defenses:

• Code execution (PythonREPL / Shell):
  • Rules like @check_shell_exec with trigger PythonREPL and check is_destructive prevent dangerous file deletions or shell commands, enforcing user_inspection instead.¹⁴⁷¹⁴⁵
  • Evaluation: >90% of unsafe executions in code agents are prevented.¹⁴⁹
• Tool misuse in financial/transaction scenarios:
  • The paper includes an example where AgentSpec enforces “transfer only to family members,” intercepting LLM-initiated money-transfer actions based on recipient attributes.¹⁴⁶
• Autonomous driving (Apollo/uDrive):
  • Rules encode traffic-law constraints and safety conditions; AgentSpec enforces 100% compliance with legal rules in AV scenarios by adjusting or vetoing planned trajectories at runtime.^147149145

These demos are very close to R2A2’s “tool misuse protection” goals, but implemented with a symbolic DSL rather than CMDP optimization.

If you want, I can draft a concrete integration sketch: using a CMDP-based planner for long-horizon risk optimization plus AgentSpec-style rule enforcement at the tool boundary, targeting a LangGraph/Temporal agent that does infra operations. ^{157158159160161162163164}

⁂

Footnotes

1. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹

2. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.18666v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03931 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

4. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.09244v1 ↩

5. https://www.centeraipolicy.org/work/the-rapid-rise-of-autonomous-ai ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

6. https://verityai.co/blog/ai-agents-governance-crisis-waiting-happen ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. https://arxiv.org/html/2410.17520v3 ↩ ↩² ↩³

8. https://goautonomous.io ↩

9. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unintended-consequences-autonomous-decision-making-rpatech-benhc ↩

10. https://www.clonebob.com/blog/autonomous-execution ↩

11. https://www.gnani.ai/resources/blogs/future-autonomous-decision-making-trends-in-ai-agents-d9958 ↩

12. https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/collaboration-opportunities/entrepreneurs-in-residence/reliable-autonomous-decision-making-agents/ ↩

13. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-isnt-autonomous-your-business-strategy-depends-why-chris-hood-3pr4c ↩

14. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.23978v1 ↩

15. https://www.nominal.so/blog/autonomous-execution-vs-ai-assistance ↩

16. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

17. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²

18. https://fugumt.com/fugumt/paper_check/2506.23844v1_enmode ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

19. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.01332v2 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

20. https://arxiv.org/html/2412.13238v2 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

21. https://arxiv.org/html/2601.11781v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

22. https://scouts.yutori.com/e4ce1b2b-d9da-46cb-b936-e8e47953f39c ↩

23. https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/llm-based-autonomous-agents ↩

24. https://powerdrill.ai/discover/summary-a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-cmcl0ij44yrvi07py0chw7z6j ↩

25. https://www.techaheadcorp.com/blog/building-autonomous-agents-with-llms/ ↩

26. https://pt.linkedin.com/pulse/rebelião-das-máquinas-os-riscos-de-segurança-em-agentes-celso-sousa-okczf ↩

27. https://fme.safe.com/guides/ai-agent-architecture/ ↩

28. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Safeguarding-AI-Agents:-Developing-and-Analyzing-Domkundwar-Mukunda/0de49793dccfe061eb4396fc2a50e90eed2ab608 ↩

29. https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1p7y10g/i_tested_9_major_llms_on_a_governance_critique_a/ ↩

30. https://www.computer.org/publications/tech-news/community-voices/autonomous-ai-agents ↩

31. https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/constrained-markov-decision-process ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

32. https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/constrained-markov-decision-process-cmdp ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

33. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩ ↩²

34. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩ ↩²

35. https://fugumt.com/fugumt/paper_check/2506.23844v1_enmode ↩

36. https://arxiv.org/html/2601.11781v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

37. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11781 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²²

38. https://deeplearn.org/arxiv/560077/safedrive:-knowledge--and-data-driven-risk-sensitive-decision-making-for-autonomous-vehicles-with-large-language-models ↩ ↩²

39. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.01332v2 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

40. https://openreview.net/pdf/759aea3106ac60c5aa943e59a49fe16d17d85245.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

41. https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/emergent-risk-awareness-in-rational-agents-under-resource-constraints ↩ ↩²

42. https://www.themoonlight.io/ko/review/a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-large-model-based-agents ↩

43. http://mers-papers.csail.mit.edu/Conference/2015/Masahiro_Estlin_Tara_Williams_ACIEEE/A%20Risk-Aware%20Architecture.pdf ↩

44. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Safe_Drive_Initative_SafeDI_Framework_Technical_Implementation_Guidance_2021.pdf ↩

45. https://sciencecast.org/casts/vw2u6d3nbasp ↩

46. http://www.columbia.edu/~jd2736/publication/CMDP.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³

47. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.10895.pdf ↩ ↩²

48. https://mattlanders.net/constrained-mdps.html ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

49. https://arxiv.org/html/2601.11781v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

50. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11781 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

51. https://deeplearn.org/arxiv/560077/safedrive:-knowledge--and-data-driven-risk-sensitive-decision-making-for-autonomous-vehicles-with-large-language-models ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

52. https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/constrained-markov-decision-process ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

53. https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/constrained-markov-decision-process-cmdp ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

54. https://arxiv.org/html/2505.23436v4 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

55. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23436 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

56. https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/emergent-risk-awareness-in-rational-agents-under-resource-constraints ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377221725006757 ↩

58. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v328y2026i1p174-188.html ↩

59. https://lavaei.ieor.berkeley.edu/CMDP_2021_1.pdf ↩

60. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=EWXKo2fj4h ↩

61. https://www.alphaxiv.org/overview/2601.11781 ↩

62. https://neurips.cc/virtual/2025/poster/120039 ↩

63. https://x.com/SciFi/status/2015098463445246123 ↩

64. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.10895.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

65. http://www.columbia.edu/~jd2736/publication/CMDP.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

66. https://arxiv.org/html/2601.11781v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³

67. https://dongshed.github.io/papers/22dingpolicy.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

68. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11781 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴

69. https://deeplearn.org/arxiv/560077/safedrive:-knowledge--and-data-driven-risk-sensitive-decision-making-for-autonomous-vehicles-with-large-language-models ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

70. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v151/ying22a/ying22a.pdf ↩ ↩²

71. https://mattlanders.net/constrained-mdps.html ↩ ↩²

72. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=gWNOq2Pe5W ↩

73. https://www.jair.org/index.php/jair/article/download/18129/27212 ↩

74. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v151/tiapkin22a/tiapkin22a.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³

75. https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/nuscenes-detection-score-nds ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

76. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.02448v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³

77. https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-628-paper.pdf ↩

78. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/d0949cbcec31c09431610553a284f94a-Paper-Conference.pdf ↩

79. https://lavaei.ieor.berkeley.edu/Safe-RL-2024-1.pdf ↩

80. https://papers.bmvc2023.org/0486.pdf ↩

81. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.13727v1 ↩ ↩²

82. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63913-1 ↩ ↩²

83. https://mireshghallah.github.io/privacy_is_not_just_memorization_mireshghallah_li_2025.pdf ↩ ↩²

84. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.04320.pdf ↩ ↩²

85. https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩

86. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

87. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.23844.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

88. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03931 ↩ ↩² ↩³

89. https://www.ri.cmu.edu/app/uploads/2025/10/rapandya_phd_ri_2025.pdf ↩

90. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.18666v3 ↩ ↩²

91. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.18666v1 ↩

92. https://www.alphaxiv.org/fr/overview/2503.18666v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³

93. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel8/6287639/10820123/11168242.pdf ↩

94. https://mattlanders.net/constrained-mdps.html ↩ ↩²

95. https://elias-ai.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ELIAS_D3_1.pdf ↩

96. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩

97. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

98. https://chatpaper.com/paper/215797 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

99. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.13727v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

100. https://chatpaper.com/chatpaper/paper/123315 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

101. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.23844.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

102. https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-large-model-based-agents ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²

103. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03931v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

104. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/10278 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

105. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩ ↩² ↩³

106. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13727 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

107. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb61ebdcbb36a799b7460ae33aaad8c08e98bb9f ↩

108. https://chatpaper.com/chatpaper/paper/156395 ↩

109. https://www.techrxiv.org/users/574774/articles/1329333/master/file/data/review/review.pdf?inline=true ↩

110. https://www.themoonlight.io/tw/review/a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-large-model-based-agents ↩

111. https://scouts.yutori.com/e4ce1b2b-d9da-46cb-b936-e8e47953f39c ↩

112. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²

113. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03931 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

114. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/10278 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

115. https://fugumt.com/fugumt/paper_check/2506.23844v1_enmode ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

116. https://chatpaper.com/chatpaper/paper/156395 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

117. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03931v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

118. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.18666.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

119. https://arxiv.org/html/2505.01441v1 ↩ ↩²

120. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.23844.pdf ↩

121. https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-large-model-based-agents ↩

122. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩

123. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/eb113910e9c3f6242541c1652e30dfd6-Paper-Conference.pdf ↩

124. https://pub.towardsai.net/llm-poisoning-a-comprehensive-educational-guide-️-cca64ba167d6 ↩

125. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.05901.pdf ↩

126. https://mamtaupadhyay.com/2025/05/26/memory-poisoning-in-agentic-llms/ ↩

127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253525006712 ↩

128. https://cdn-dynmedia-1.microsoft.com/is/content/microsoftcorp/microsoft/final/en-us/microsoft-brand/documents/Taxonomy-of-Failure-Mode-in-Agentic-AI-Systems-Whitepaper.pdf ↩

129. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.18666.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³

130. https://github.com/haoyuwang99/AgentSpec ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

131. https://arxiv.org/html/2508.00500v1 ↩ ↩²

132. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.13727.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³

133. https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/autonomous-agents-and-policy-compliance-a-framework-for-reasoning-about-penalties ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

134. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03931 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

135. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

136. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

137. https://www.themoonlight.io/ko/review/a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-large-model-based-agents ↩ ↩²

138. https://github.com/smartnose/policy-enforcer ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

139. https://github.com/ucsb-mlsec/Awesome-Agent-Security ↩

140. https://github.com/cjackett/ai-safety ↩

141. https://cposkitt.github.io/files/publications/agentspec_llm_enforcement_icse26.pdf ↩

142. https://github.com/oracle/agent-spec ↩

143. https://www.alphaxiv.org/overview/2503.18666v3 ↩

144. https://github.com/AGI-Edgerunners/LLM-Agents-Papers ↩

145. https://github.com/haoyuwang99/AgentSpec ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

146. https://www.alphaxiv.org/fr/overview/2503.18666v1 ↩ ↩²

147. https://cposkitt.github.io/files/publications/agentspec_llm_enforcement_icse26.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

148. https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/agentspec-customizable-runtime-enforcement-for-safe-and-reliable-llm-agents ↩ ↩²

149. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18666 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

150. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23844 ↩

151. https://arxiv.org/html/2506.23844v1 ↩

152. https://www.themoonlight.io/ko/review/a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-large-model-based-agents ↩

153. https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/a-survey-on-autonomy-induced-security-risks-in-large-model-based-agents ↩

154. https://github.com/R2U2/r2u2 ↩

155. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.17564v1 ↩

156. http://www.columbia.edu/~jd2736/publication/CMDP.pdf ↩

157. https://github.com/oracle/agent-spec ↩

158. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.18666v2 ↩

159. https://github.com/oracle/agent-spec/actions ↩

160. https://allabouttesting.org/owasp-agentic-ai-threat-t2-tool-misuse-explained-with-examples/ ↩

161. https://github.com/github/spec-kit/blob/main/AGENTS.md ↩

162. https://github.com/r2e2-project/r2e2 ↩

163. https://agents.md ↩

164. https://github.com/r2e2-project/r2e2/actions ↩