Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 132 references

Why Does Agentic Safety Fail to Generalize Across Tasks?

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-11 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Safety requirements increase the sensitivity of optimal controllers to task specifications compared to non-safe execution.

desk verdict The LQ H∞ Lipschitz bound is a clean new result worth checking, but the jump to explaining safety failures in neural and LLM agents stays unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.06992 v1 submitted 2026-05-07 cs.LG stat.ML

Yonatan Slutzky , Yotam Alexander , Tomer Slor , Yoav Nagel , Nadav Cohen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords agenticsafetygeneralizationLipschitzconstantH-infinitycontrollinear-quadraticAIagents
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationalpha_pin_under_high_calibration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that failures of safety to generalize in AI agents across tasks stem from an inherent property of safety itself, not just training shortcomings. It proves this by showing that the mapping from task specification to optimal controller has a higher Lipschitz constant when H∞-robustness safety is included than when it is not. This is analyzed in linear-quadratic control and backed by experiments where neural network agents navigate quadcopters and LLM agents handle customer tasks, with safety dropping on unseen tasks while execution holds. A sympathetic reader cares because it indicates that scaling up current training will not fix safe generalization in multi-task agents.

What carries the argument

The Lipschitz constant of the mapping from task specification to optimal controller, which is proven larger when H∞-robustness is added to the linear-quadratic objective.

What would settle it

Finding that safety performance generalizes to new tasks at the same rate as task execution in a neural network or LLM agent, without new mechanisms, would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In linear-quadratic control with H∞-robustness, the mapping from task specification to an optimal controller has a higher Lipschitz constant with safety requirements than without, yielding a Lipschitz bound of independent interest. This shows that the relationship between a task and its safe execution is more complex than between a task and its execution alone.

Load-bearing premise

Linear-quadratic control with H∞-robustness sufficiently captures the essential structure of safety in general agentic settings with neural networks or LLMs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Safety generalization requires approaches different from those that improve task execution alone.
  • Empirical safety failures on unseen tasks reflect structural complexity rather than insufficient training.
  • The higher Lipschitz constant bounds how much controller changes with task variations when safety is enforced.
  • Current efforts to enhance agentic safety are likely insufficient for multi-task deployment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Safety fine-tuning techniques may inherit similar sensitivity issues when applied to tasks outside the training distribution.
  • Task-independent safety layers or constraints could reduce dependence on the sensitive mapping.
  • The theoretical bound might be tested by measuring controller variation directly in more complex simulated agents.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that failures of agentic safety to generalize across tasks stem from an inherent structural property rather than training limitations: the mapping from task specification to an optimal controller has a strictly higher Lipschitz constant when H∞ safety constraints are imposed than in the nominal case. This is proven for linear-quadratic control, yielding a Lipschitz bound of independent interest, and illustrated empirically via neural-network policies on quadcopter navigation and LLM agents on CRM tasks.

Significance. If the higher-Lipschitz property under safety constraints extends beyond the LQ setting, the result would establish that safety generalization gaps are fundamental, shifting research from incremental training improvements toward new paradigms for safe multi-task agents. The control-theoretic derivation of the Lipschitz inflation and the bound itself constitute a clear technical contribution. The empirical sections usefully demonstrate the phenomenon in two distinct domains but do not yet confirm the proposed mechanism.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Theoretical Analysis): The proof that safety requirements strictly increase the Lipschitz constant of the task-to-controller map is derived exclusively for linear dynamics, quadratic costs, and H∞-robust synthesis. No argument is given showing that this inflation persists for the nonlinear neural-network or LLM policies used in the experiments, nor that it dominates other factors such as non-convexity or prompt sensitivity.
  2. [§4] §4 (Empirical Evaluation): The quadcopter and CRM experiments report generalization gaps under safety constraints but contain no direct measurement or bound on the Lipschitz constant of the learned policy map, no ablation isolating the effect of the safety term, and no error bars or statistical tests. Consequently the empirical results illustrate the problem without testing whether the theoretical Lipschitz mechanism is operative or causal.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the analysis 'yields a Lipschitz bound of independent interest' yet neither states the explicit form of the bound nor compares its tightness to existing H∞ results.
  2. [§2] Notation for the task-to-controller map and the safe versus nominal Lipschitz constants is introduced without a consolidated table or diagram, making cross-references between the proof and the empirical claims harder to follow.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 2 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the careful reading and valuable suggestions. The comments help clarify the scope of our theoretical results and the strength of the empirical evidence. We provide point-by-point responses and describe the changes we will make in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Theoretical Analysis): The proof that safety requirements strictly increase the Lipschitz constant of the task-to-controller map is derived exclusively for linear dynamics, quadratic costs, and H∞-robust synthesis. No argument is given showing that this inflation persists for the nonlinear neural-network or LLM policies used in the experiments, nor that it dominates other factors such as non-convexity or prompt sensitivity.

    Authors: We concur that our theoretical analysis is confined to the linear-quadratic regulator with H∞ robustness. This setting was selected because it permits a precise derivation of the Lipschitz constant and yields a bound that may be of independent interest in control theory. For the neural network and LLM experiments, we present them as empirical illustrations of the safety generalization gap in more complex domains, rather than as direct validations of the Lipschitz mechanism. In the revision, we will add a paragraph in §3 discussing potential reasons why the Lipschitz inflation could extend to nonlinear settings, such as the increased sensitivity required to maintain robustness margins under safety constraints. We will also note that factors like non-convex optimization and prompt sensitivity may interact with or amplify this effect, and clarify that our claim is that the structural property contributes to the observed failures, not that it is the sole cause. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Empirical Evaluation): The quadcopter and CRM experiments report generalization gaps under safety constraints but contain no direct measurement or bound on the Lipschitz constant of the learned policy map, no ablation isolating the effect of the safety term, and no error bars or statistical tests. Consequently the empirical results illustrate the problem without testing whether the theoretical Lipschitz mechanism is operative or causal.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies several shortcomings in the empirical section. Computing or bounding the Lipschitz constant of high-dimensional neural network policies is generally intractable, which precluded direct measurement. Similarly, the original experiments did not include ablations or statistical analysis. In the revised version, we will incorporate error bars based on multiple random seeds and perform statistical tests (e.g., t-tests) to assess the significance of the generalization gaps. We will also add ablation experiments that train agents with and without the safety constraints to isolate their contribution to the observed gaps. These changes will provide stronger empirical support, although a direct causal link via Lipschitz measurement in the nonlinear case remains difficult to establish empirically. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Rigorous proof that the Lipschitz constant inflation persists for nonlinear neural-network and LLM policies
  • Direct measurement or bound on the Lipschitz constant of the learned policies in the quadcopter and CRM experiments

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical result is a mathematical proof in linear-quadratic control with H∞-robustness showing that the task-to-optimal-controller mapping has a strictly higher Lipschitz constant when safety constraints are imposed. This is derived from first-principles analysis of the control problem and does not reduce to any fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations. The Lipschitz bound is explicitly presented as a result of independent interest. Empirical sections on neural quadcopter policies and LLM-based CRM agents are described as demonstrations and illustrations rather than the load-bearing evidence for the generalization claim. No steps match the enumerated circularity patterns; the derivation chain remains self-contained against external control-theoretic benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the domain assumption that LQ control with H∞ robustness models agentic safety; no free parameters are introduced in the abstract and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Linear-quadratic control with H∞-robustness captures the core relationship between task specification and safe controller selection
    Invoked as the setting in which the Lipschitz bound is derived and proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why Does Agentic Safety Fail to Generalize Across Tasks?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2605.06992

@misc{pith2026260506992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why Does Agentic Safety Fail to Generalize Across Tasks?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2605.06992}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.06992}
}
abstract

AI agents are increasingly deployed in multi-task settings, where the task to perform is specified at test time, and the agent must generalize to unseen tasks. A major concern in such settings is safety: often, an agent must not only execute unseen tasks, but do so while avoiding risks and handling ones that materialize. Empirical evidence suggests that even when the ability to execute generalizes to unseen tasks, the ability to do so safely frequently does not. This paper provides theory and experiments indicating that failures of agentic safety to generalize across tasks are not merely due to limitations of training methods, but reflect an inherent property of safety itself: the relationship between a task and its safe execution is more complex than the relationship between a task and its execution alone. Theoretically, we analyze linear-quadratic control with $H_{\infty}$-robustness, and prove that the mapping from task specification to an optimal controller has higher Lipschitz constant with safety requirements than without, yielding a Lipschitz bound of independent interest. Empirically, we demonstrate our conclusions in simulated quadcopter navigation with a neural network agent and in CRM with an LLM agent. Our findings suggest that current efforts to enhance agentic safety may be insufficient, and point to a need for fundamentally different approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In the theoretically analyzed setting (linear-quadratic control with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Demonstration of the separation of Lipschitz constants derived in Theorem 1—the Lipschitz constant of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In the theoretically analyzed setting (linear-quadratic control with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In the theoretically analyzed setting (linear-quadratic control with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 132 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A deterministic setting for the numerical computation of the stabilizing solutions to stochastic game-theoretic riccati equations.Mathematics, 11(9):2068, 2023

    Samir Aberkane and Vasile Dragan. A deterministic setting for the numerical computation of the stabilizing solutions to stochastic game-theoretic riccati equations.Mathematics, 11(9):2068, 2023

    work page

  2. [2]

    Constrained policy optimization

    Joshua Achiam, David Held, Aviv Tamar, and Pieter Abbeel. Constrained policy optimization. In International conference on machine learning, pages 22–31. Pmlr, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Routledge, 2021

    Eitan Altman.Constrained Markov decision processes. Routledge, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Github’s copilot code review: Can ai spot security flaws before you commit?arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13650, 2025

    Amena Amro and Manar H Alalfi. Github’s copilot code review: Can ai spot security flaws before you commit?arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13650, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Brian D. O. Anderson and John B. Moore.Optimal Control: Linear Quadratic Methods. Dover Publications, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents

    Maksym Andriushchenko, Alexandra Souly, Mateusz Dziemian, Derek Duenas, Maxwell Lin, Justin Wang, Dan Hendrycks, Andy Zou, Zico Kolter, Matt Fredrikson, et al. Agentharm: A benchmark for measuring harmfulness of llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09024, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Princeton university press, 2021

    Karl Johan Åström and Richard Murray.Feedback systems: an introduction for scientists and engineers. Princeton university press, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

    Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022. 10

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 132 references
  1. [9]

    Turner, and Dario Amodei

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Chris McKinnon, Catherine Chen, Catherine Olsson, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Eli Li, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tristan Hume, Jan Leike...

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales

    Stefan Banach. Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 3:133–181, 1922

    1922

  3. [11]

    A system for human-ai collaboration for online customer support

    Debayan Banerjee, Mathis Poser, Christina Wiethof, Varun Shankar Subramanian, Richard Paucar, Eva AC Bittner, and Chris Biemann. A system for human-ai collaboration for online customer support. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12158, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Universal approximation bounds for superpositions of a sigmoidal function.IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 39(3):930–945, 2002

    Andrew R Barron. Universal approximation bounds for superpositions of a sigmoidal function.IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 39(3):930–945, 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    Tamer Ba¸ sar and Pierre Bernhard.H-infinity optimal control and related minimax design problems: a dynamic game approach. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    A model of inductive bias learning.Journal of artificial intelligence research, 12: 149–198, 2000

    Jonathan Baxter. A model of inductive bias learning.Journal of artificial intelligence research, 12: 149–198, 2000

    2000

  7. [15]

    Athena Scientific, 2019

    Dimitri Bertsekas.Reinforcement learning and optimal control, volume 1. Athena Scientific, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism

    Xiao Bi, Deli Chen, Guanting Chen, Shanhuang Chen, Damai Dai, Chengqi Deng, Honghui Ding, Kai Dong, Qiushi Du, Zhe Fu, et al. Deepseek llm: Scaling open-source language models with longtermism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02954, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Birupaksha Biswas and Suhena Sarkar. Responsible agentic artificial intelligence governance: Risk, safety, and ethical challenges in autonomous systems.International Journal of Applied Resilience and Sustainability, 2(2):142–167, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    Crazyflie 2.0

    Bitcraze AB. Crazyflie 2.0. https://www.bitcraze.io/products/old-products/ crazyflie-2-0/, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Stability and generalization.Journal of machine learning research, 2(Mar):499–526, 2002

    Olivier Bousquet and André Elisseeff. Stability and generalization.Journal of machine learning research, 2(Mar):499–526, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Loredana Caruccio, Stefano Cirillo, Giuseppe Polese, Giandomenico Solimando, Shanmugam Sundara- murthy, and Genoveffa Tortora. Claude 2.0 large language model: Tackling a real-world classification problem with a new iterative prompt engineering approach.Intelligent Systems wit...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Constrained meta-reinforcement learning for adaptable safety guarantee with differentiable convex programming

    Minjae Cho and Chuangchuang Sun. Constrained meta-reinforcement learning for adaptable safety guarantee with differentiable convex programming. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 20975–20983, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Quantifying generalization in reinforcement learning

    Karl Cobbe, Oleg Klimov, Chris Hesse, Taehoon Kim, and John Schulman. Quantifying generalization in reinforcement learning. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1282–1289. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Leveraging procedural generation to benchmark reinforcement learning

    Karl Cobbe, Chris Hesse, Jacob Hilton, and John Schulman. Leveraging procedural generation to benchmark reinforcement learning. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2048–2056. PMLR, 2020

  17. [25]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025

    Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabil...

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12773, 2023

    Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Ruiyang Sun, Jiaming Ji, Xinbo Xu, Mickel Liu, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12773, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Safe exploration in continuous action spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08757, 2018

    Gal Dalal, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Matej Vecerik, Todd Hester, Cosmin Paduraru, and Yuval Tassa. Safe exploration in continuous action spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08757, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Peter Dayan and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Feudal reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 1993

    1993

  21. [29]

    Agentdojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for llm agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:82895–82920, 2024

    Edoardo Debenedetti, Jie Zhang, Mislav Balunovic, Luca Beurer-Kellner, Marc Fischer, and Florian Tramèr. Agentdojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for llm agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:82895–82920, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:28091–28114, 2023

    Xiang Deng, Yu Gu, Boyuan Zheng, Shijie Chen, Sam Stevens, Boshi Wang, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:28091–28114, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Hierarchical reinforcement learning with the maxq value function decomposition

    Thomas G Dietterich. Hierarchical reinforcement learning with the maxq value function decomposition. Journal of artificial intelligence research, 13:227–303, 2000

    2000

  24. [32]

    Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1994

    Peter Dorato, Vito Cerone, and Chaouki Abdallah.Linear-quadratic control: an introduction. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1994

    1994

  25. [33]

    Iterative algorithms for stabilizing solutions of game theoretic riccati equations of stochastic control

    V Dragan, G Freiling, T Morozan, and AM Stoica. Iterative algorithms for stabilizing solutions of game theoretic riccati equations of stochastic control. InProceedings of 18th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems. Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, CD...

    2008

  26. [34]

    Laradji, Manuel Del Verme, Tom Marty, David Vazquez, Nicolas Chapados, and Alexandre Lacoste

    Alexandre Drouin, Maxime Gasse, Massimo Caccia, Issam H. Laradji, Manuel Del Verme, Tom Marty, David Vazquez, Nicolas Chapados, and Alexandre Lacoste. WorkArena: How capable are web agents at solving common knowledge work tasks? In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine ...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bartlett, Ilya Sutskever, and Pieter Abbeel

    Yan Duan, John Schulman, Xi Chen, Peter L. Bartlett, Ilya Sutskever, and Pieter Abbeel. RL 2: Fast reinforcement learning via slow reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02779, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Workflowllm: Enhancing workflow orchestration capability of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05451, 2024

    Shengda Fan, Xin Cong, Yuepeng Fu, Zhong Zhang, Shuyan Zhang, Yuanwei Liu, Yesai Wu, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Workflowllm: Enhancing workflow orchestration capability of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05451, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks

    Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1):1437–1480, 2015

    Javier Garc ia and Fernando Fern ’andez. A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1):1437–1480, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models.Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Bounded autonomy: Behavioral specification languages and runtime enforcement architectures for trustworthy agentic ai systems.Authorea Preprints, 2026

    Harper Gough. Bounded autonomy: Behavioral specification languages and runtime enforcement architectures for trustworthy agentic ai systems.Authorea Preprints, 2026

    2026

  33. [41]

    Courier Corporation, 2012

    Michael Green and David JN Limebeer.Linear robust control. Courier Corporation, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Train hard, fight easy: Robust meta reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68276–68299, 2023

    Ido Greenberg, Shie Mannor, Gal Chechik, and Eli Meirom. Train hard, fight easy: Robust meta reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68276–68299, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Cost-aware offline safe meta reinforcement learning with robust in-distribution online task adaptation

    Cong Guan, Ruiqi Xue, Ziqian Zhang, Lihe Li, Yi-Chen Li, Lei Yuan, and Yang Yu. Cost-aware offline safe meta reinforcement learning with robust in-distribution online task adaptation. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent System...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Redcode: Risky code execution and generation benchmark for code agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:106190–106236, 2024

    Chengquan Guo, Xun Liu, Chulin Xie, Andy Zhou, Yi Zeng, Zinan Lin, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. Redcode: Risky code execution and generation benchmark for code agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:106190–106236, 2024. 12

    2024

  37. [45]

    Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680, 2024

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Springer, 2002

    László Györfi, Michael Kohler, Adam Krzy˙zak, and Harro Walk.A distribution-free theory of nonpara- metric regression. Springer, 2002

    2002

  39. [47]

    Harris, K

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, et al. Array programming with NumPy.Nature, 585(7825):357–362, sep 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Haynsworth

    Emilie V . Haynsworth. Determination of the inertia of a partitioned hermitian matrix.Linear Algebra and its Applications, 1(1):73–81, 1968

    1968

  41. [49]

    Cambridge university press, 2012

    Roger A Horn and Charles R Johnson.Matrix analysis. Cambridge university press, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2106, 2021

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2106, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Limits to verification and validation of agentic behavior

    David J Jilk. Limits to verification and validation of agentic behavior. InArtificial Intelligence Safety and Security, pages 225–234. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023

    Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Reinforcement learning: A survey

    Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Michael L Littman, and Andrew W Moore. Reinforcement learning: A survey. Journal of artificial intelligence research, 4:237–285, 1996

    1996

  46. [54]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3 edition, 2004

    Yitzhak Katznelson.An Introduction to Harmonic Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3 edition, 2004

    2004

  47. [55]

    Generalizing from a few environments in safety-critical reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01475, 2019

    Zachary Kenton, Angelos Filos, Owain Evans, and Yarin Gal. Generalizing from a few environments in safety-critical reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01475, 2019

    1907

  48. [56]

    A cmdp-within-online framework for meta-safe reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16601, 2024

    Vanshaj Khattar, Yuhao Ding, Bilgehan Sel, Javad Lavaei, and Ming Jin. A cmdp-within-online framework for meta-safe reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16601, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Learning shared safety constraints from multi-task demonstrations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:5808–5826, 2023

    Konwoo Kim, Gokul Swamy, Zuxin Liu, Ding Zhao, Sanjiban Choudhury, and Steven Z Wu. Learning shared safety constraints from multi-task demonstrations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:5808–5826, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A survey of zero-shot generalisation in deep reinforcement learning.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 76:201–264, 2023

    Robert Kirk, Amy Zhang, Edward Grefenstette, and Tim Rocktäschel. A survey of zero-shot generalisation in deep reinforcement learning.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 76:201–264, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Wiley-interscience New York, 1972

    Huibert Kwakernaak and Raphael Sivan.Linear optimal control systems, volume 1. Wiley-interscience New York, 1972

    1972

  53. [61]

    Safety generalization under distribution shift in safe reinforcement learning: A diabetes testbed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21094, 2026

    Minjae Kwon, Josephine Lamp, and Lu Feng. Safety generalization under distribution shift in safe reinforcement learning: A diabetes testbed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21094, 2026

    2026

  54. [62]

    In-context reinforcement learning with algorithm distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14215, 2022

    Michael Laskin, Luyu Wang, Junhyuk Oh, Emilio Parisotto, Stephen Spencer, Richie Steigerwald, DJ Strouse, Steven Hansen, Angelos Filos, Ethan Brooks, et al. In-context reinforcement learning with algorithm distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14215, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    St-webagentbench: A benchmark for evaluating safety and trustworthiness in web agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06703, 2024

    Ido Levy, Ben Wiesel, Sami Marreed, Alon Oved, Avi Yaeli, and Segev Shlomov. St-webagentbench: A benchmark for evaluating safety and trustworthiness in web agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06703, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Deep reinforcement learning: An overview.arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07274, 2017

    Yuxi Li. Deep reinforcement learning: An overview.arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07274, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Reinforcement learning in robust markov decision processes.Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    Shiau Hong Lim, Huan Xu, and Shie Mannor. Reinforcement learning in robust markov decision processes.Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013. 13

    2013

  58. [66]

    Deepseek-v3

    Aixin Liu, Aoxue Mei, Bangcai Lin, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bingzheng Xu, Bochao Wu, Bowei Zhang, Chaofan Lin, Chen Dong, et al. Deepseek-v3. 2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02556, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03688, 2023

    Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al. Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03688, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Paying less generalization tax: A cross-domain generalization study of rl training for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18217, 2026

    Zhihan Liu, Lin Guan, Yixin Nie, Kai Zhang, Zhuoqun Hao, Lin Chen, Asli Celikyilmaz, Zhaoran Wang, and Na Zhang. Paying less generalization tax: A cross-domain generalization study of rl training for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18217, 2026

    2026

  61. [69]

    On the robustness of safe reinforcement learning under observational perturbations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14691, 2022

    Zuxin Liu, Zijian Guo, Zhepeng Cen, Huan Zhang, Jie Tan, Bo Li, and Ding Zhao. On the robustness of safe reinforcement learning under observational perturbations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14691, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Mesa: Offline meta-rl for safe adaptation and fault tolerance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03575, 2021

    Michael Luo, Ashwin Balakrishna, Brijen Thananjeyan, Suraj Nair, Julian Ibarz, Jie Tan, Chelsea Finn, Ion Stoica, and Ken Goldberg. Mesa: Offline meta-rl for safe adaptation and fault tolerance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03575, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Transformers are meta-reinforcement learners

    Luckeciano C Melo. Transformers are meta-reinforcement learners. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 15340–15359. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Llama 3.2 model card, 2024

    Meta AI. Llama 3.2 model card, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants

    Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    Playwright

    Microsoft. Playwright. https://github.com/microsoft/playwright. GitHub repository. Accessed: 2026-05-05

    2026

  68. [76]

    The time-invariant linear-quadratic optimal control problem.Automatica, 13(4):347–357, 1977

    BP Molinari. The time-invariant linear-quadratic optimal control problem.Automatica, 13(4):347–357, 1977

    1977

  69. [77]

    Robust reinforcement learning.Neural computation, 17(2):335–359, 2005

    Jun Morimoto and Kenji Doya. Robust reinforcement learning.Neural computation, 17(2):335–359, 2005

    2005

  70. [78]

    Sg-bench: Evaluating llm safety generalization across diverse tasks and prompt types.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:123032–123054, 2024

    Yutao Mou, Shikun Zhang, and Wei Ye. Sg-bench: Evaluating llm safety generalization across diverse tasks and prompt types.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:123032–123054, 2024

    2024

  71. [79]

    Constrained meta reinforcement learning with provable test-time safety.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21845, 2026

    Tingting Ni and Maryam Kamgarpour. Constrained meta reinforcement learning with provable test-time safety.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21845, 2026

    2026

  72. [80]

    Robust control of markov decision processes with uncertain transition matrices.Operations Research, 53(5):780–798, 2005

    Arnab Nilim and Laurent El Ghaoui. Robust control of markov decision processes with uncertain transition matrices.Operations Research, 53(5):780–798, 2005

    2005

  73. [81]

    GPT-4 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Update to GPT-5 system card: GPT-5.2, December 2025

    OpenAI. Update to GPT-5 system card: GPT-5.2, December 2025. https://openai.com/index/ gpt-5-system-card-update-gpt-5-2/

    2025

  75. [83]

    Oppenheim and Ronald W

    Alan V . Oppenheim and Ronald W. Schafer.Discrete-Time Signal Processing. Pearson, 3 edition, 2010

    2010

  76. [84]

    Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, ...

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Assessing generalization in deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.12282, 2018

    Charles Packer, Katelyn Gao, Jernej Kos, Philipp Krähenbühl, Vladlen Koltun, and Dawn Song. Assessing generalization in deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.12282, 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for reinforcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control

    Jacopo Panerati, Hehui Zheng, SiQi Zhou, James Xu, Amanda Prorok, and Angela P Schoellig. Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for reinforcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control. In2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sy...

    2021

  79. [87]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01703, 2019

    Adam Paszke. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01703, 2019. 14

    1912 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Contribution à l’étude de la représentation d’une fonction arbitraire par des intégrales définies.Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 30:289–335, 1910

    Michel Plancherel. Contribution à l’étude de la représentation d’une fonction arbitraire par des intégrales définies.Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 30:289–335, 1910

    1910

  81. [89]

    Theory of deep learning iii: Explaining the non-overfitting puzzle

    Tomaso Poggio, Kenji Kawaguchi, Qianli Liao, Brando Miranda, Lorenzo Rosasco, Xavier Boix, Jack Hidary, and Hrushikesh Mhaskar. Theory of deep learning iii: Explaining the non-overfitting puzzle. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00173, 2018

    2018

  82. [90]

    Chatdev: Communicative agents for software development

    Chen Qian, Wei Liu, Hongzhang Liu, Nuo Chen, Yufan Dang, Jiahao Li, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Xin Cong, et al. Chatdev: Communicative agents for software development. InProceedings of the 62nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1:...

    2024

  83. [91]

    Efficient off-policy meta-reinforcement learning via probabilistic context variables

    Kate Rakelly, Aurick Zhou, Chelsea Finn, Sergey Levine, and Deirdre Quillen. Efficient off-policy meta-reinforcement learning via probabilistic context variables. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 5331–5340. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  84. [92]

    Outcome-based rl provably leads transformers to reason, but only with the right data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15158, 2026

    Yuval Ran-Milo, Yotam Alexander, Shahar Mendel, and Nadav Cohen. Outcome-based rl provably leads transformers to reason, but only with the right data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15158, 2026

    2026

  85. [93]

    Benchmarking safe exploration in deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01708, 2019

    Alex Ray, Joshua Achiam, and Dario Amodei. Benchmarking safe exploration in deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01708, 2019

    1910

  86. [94]

    Codeattack: Revealing safety generalization challenges of large language models via code completion

    Qibing Ren, Chang Gao, Jing Shao, Junchi Yan, Xin Tan, Wai Lam, and Lizhuang Ma. Codeattack: Revealing safety generalization challenges of large language models via code completion. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 11437–11452, 2024

    2024

  87. [95]

    Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, 1965

    Edmund G Rynaski.The theory and application of linear optimal control. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, 1965

    1965

  88. [96]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Nicola Cancedda. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023

    2023

  89. [97]

    Nonparametric regression using deep neural networks with relu activation function

    Johannes Schmidt-Hieber. Nonparametric regression using deep neural networks with relu activation function. 2020

    2020

  90. [98]

    Goal misgeneralization: Why correct specifications aren’t enough for correct goals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01790, 2022

    Rohin Shah, Vikrant Varma, Ramana Kumar, Mary Phuong, Victoria Krakovna, Jonathan Uesato, and Zac Kenton. Goal misgeneralization: Why correct specifications aren’t enough for correct goals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01790, 2022

    2022

  91. [99]

    HuggingGPT: Solving AI tasks with chatgpt and its friends in hugging face.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580, 2023

    Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, Hang Yuan, Guoyin Wang, Daxin Zhou, Weike Zeng, Xun Cao, Jinzhu Zhang, Qiang Liu, Dong Jiang, and Wenjie Liu. HuggingGPT: Solving AI tasks with chatgpt and its friends in hugging face.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580, 2023

    2023

  92. [100]

    SuiteCRM: Open Source CRM for the World

    SuiteCRM. SuiteCRM: Open Source CRM for the World. https://github.com/SuiteCRM/ SuiteCRM. GitHub repository. Accessed: 2026-05-05

    2026

  93. [101]

    Number 1

    Richard S Sutton, Andrew G Barto, et al.Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Number 1. MIT press Cambridge, 1998

    1998

  94. [102]

    Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning.Artificial intelligence, 112(1-2):181–211, 1999

    Richard S Sutton, Doina Precup, and Satinder Singh. Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning.Artificial intelligence, 112(1-2):181–211, 1999

    1999

  95. [103]

    A minimax- imalist approach to reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04056, 2024

    Gokul Swamy, Christoph Dann, Rahul Kidambi, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Alekh Agarwal. A minimax- imalist approach to reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04056, 2024

    2024

  96. [104]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Reward constrained policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11074, 2018

    Chen Tessler, Daniel J Mankowitz, and Shie Mannor. Reward constrained policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11074, 2018

    2018

  98. [106]

    Learning to learn: Introduction and overview

    Sebastian Thrun and Lorien Pratt. Learning to learn: Introduction and overview. InLearning to learn, pages 3–17. Springer, 1998

    1998

  99. [107]

    Meta-learning linear quadratic regulators: a policy gradient maml approach for model-free lqr

    Leonardo Felipe Toso, Donglin Zhan, James Anderson, and Han Wang. Meta-learning linear quadratic regulators: a policy gradient maml approach for model-free lqr. In6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference, pages 902–915. PMLR, 2024. 15

    2024

  100. [108]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    Alexandre B Tsybakov.Introduction à l’estimation non paramétrique, volume 41. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    2003

  101. [109]

    Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Alberto Olmo, Sreedharan Sarath, and Subbarao Kambhampati. Planbench: An extensible benchmark for evaluating large language models on planning and reasoning about change.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:38975–38987, 2023

    2023

  102. [110]

    On the planning abilities of large language models-a critical investigation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:75993–76005, 2023

    Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. On the planning abilities of large language models-a critical investigation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:75993–76005, 2023

    2023

  103. [111]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, E...

    2020 doi

  104. [112]

    V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Wang, Zeb Kurth-Nelson, Dhruva Tirumala, Hubert Soyer, Joel Z

    Jane X. Wang, Zeb Kurth-Nelson, Dhruva Tirumala, Hubert Soyer, Joel Z. Leibo, Rémi Munos, Charles Blundell, Dharshan Kumaran, and Matt Botvinick. Learning to reinforcement learn. InProceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), 2016

    2016

  106. [114]

    Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771, 2019

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771, 2019

    1910

  107. [115]

    Robustness and generalization.Machine learning, 86(3):391–423, 2012

    Huan Xu and Shie Mannor. Robustness and generalization.Machine learning, 86(3):391–423, 2012

    2012

  108. [116]

    Trustworthy reinforcement learning against intrinsic vulnerabilities: Robustness, safety, and generalizability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08025, 2022

    Mengdi Xu, Zuxin Liu, Peide Huang, Wenhao Ding, Zhepeng Cen, Bo Li, and Ding Zhao. Trustworthy reinforcement learning against intrinsic vulnerabilities: Robustness, safety, and generalizability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08025, 2022

    2022

  109. [117]

    Efficient safe meta-reinforcement learning: Provable near-optimality and anytime safety

    Siyuan Xu and Minghui Zhu. Efficient safe meta-reinforcement learning: Provable near-optimality and anytime safety. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  110. [118]

    Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528–50652, 2024

    John Yang, Carlos E Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528–50652, 2024

    2024

  111. [119]

    Safe reinforcement learning with natural language constraints.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:13794–13808, 2021

    Tsung-Yen Yang, Michael Y Hu, Yinlam Chow, Peter J Ramadge, and Karthik Narasimhan. Safe reinforcement learning with natural language constraints.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:13794–13808, 2021

    2021

  112. [120]

    ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  113. [121]

    Error bounds for approximations with deep ReLU networks.Neural Networks, 94: 103–114, 2017

    Dmitry Yarotsky. Error bounds for approximations with deep ReLU networks.Neural Networks, 94: 103–114, 2017

    2017

  114. [122]

    Safeagentbench: A benchmark for safe task planning of embodied llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13178, 2024

    Sheng Yin, Xianghe Pang, Yuanzhuo Ding, Menglan Chen, Yutong Bi, Yichen Xiong, Wenhao Huang, Zhen Xiang, Jing Shao, and Siheng Chen. Safeagentbench: A benchmark for safe task planning of embodied llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13178, 2024

    2024

  115. [123]

    Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning

    Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning. InConference on robot learning, pages 1094–1100. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  116. [124]

    Kaiqing Zhang, Xiangyuan Zhang, Bin Hu, and Tamer Basar. Derivative-free policy optimization for linear risk-sensitive and robust control design: Implicit regularization and sample complexity.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:2949–2964, 2021. 16

    2021

  117. [125]

    Agent-safetybench: Evaluating the safety of llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14470, 2024

    Zhexin Zhang, Shiyao Cui, Yida Lu, Jingzhuo Zhou, Junxiao Yang, Hongning Wang, and Minlie Huang. Agent-safetybench: Evaluating the safety of llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14470, 2024

    2024

  118. [126]

    Safetybench: Evaluating the safety of large language models

    Zhexin Zhang, Leqi Lei, Lindong Wu, Rui Sun, Yongkang Huang, Chong Long, Xiao Liu, Xuanyu Lei, Jie Tang, and Minlie Huang. Safetybench: Evaluating the safety of large language models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vo...

    2024

  119. [127]

    Doyle, and Keith Glover.Robust and Optimal Control

    Kemin Zhou, John C. Doyle, and Keith Glover.Robust and Optimal Control. Prentice Hall, 1996

    1996

  120. [128]

    Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Can typos cause harm? the impact of imperfect input on llm safety

    Saurabh Zinjad, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Alimohammad Beigi, and Huan Liu. Can typos cause harm? the impact of imperfect input on llm safety. InInternational Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral- Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Si...

    2025

  122. [130]

    Varibad: A very good method for bayes-adaptive deep rl via meta-learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08348, 2019

    Luisa Zintgraf, Kyriacos Shiarlis, Maximilian Igl, Sebastian Schulze, Yarin Gal, Katja Hofmann, and Shimon Whiteson. Varibad: A very good method for bayes-adaptive deep rl via meta-learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08348, 2019

    1910

  123. [131]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Brianna Zitkovich, Tianhe Yu, Sichun Xu, Peng Xu, Ted Xiao, Fei Xia, Jialin Wu, Paul Wohlhart, Stefan Welker, Ayzaan Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  124. [132]

    Create a new Account with Name [NAME], Phone [PHONE], and State [STATE]

    Markel Zubia, Thiago D Simão, and Nils Jansen. Robust transfer of safety-constrained reinforcement learning agents. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. 17 A Theoretical Background This appendix presents classical background on the unsaf...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed May 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.