arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.28484

Proof-Carrying Contracts: Commitments AI Agents Cannot Break

Carlo Ciliberto·Alessandro Rudi·Enrico Tassi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI agents increasingly act on behalf of people or other agents, purchasing services, exchanging information and delegating work. What an agent must respect is written in instructions, policies or agreements, but text alone cannot make it comply. It may make mistakes, be redirected by what it reads, or pursue different interests. For an economy of such agents to function, parties need agreements they can rely on without inspecting or trusting one another's agents. We introduce Proof-Carrying Contracts (PC2), a framework for making agreed constraints enforceable throughout an agent's interactions with a system. Before a requested operation can run, the agent must supply a machine-checkable proof that it preserves the agreed constraints in every case allowed by its model. An execution system called the Airlock checks the proof and controls access to the operation. The parties specify the conditions to preserve, while the agent supplies the reasoning needed to justify its decisions and remains free to adapt its strategy. This avoids having to design a separate permission policy and prove that every decision it permits is safe. We prove that the constraints hold at every instant during execution, even for an adversarial agent, and identify when this implies safety in the world. Reusable capability modules provide tools and guarantees from which contracts can be constructed. PC2 provides a foundation for an agent economy whose agreements protect both those delegating work and those carrying it out.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CRcs.LOcs.MAcs.SYeess.SY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Carlo Ciliberto, Alessandro Rudi, Enrico Tassi. 2026-10-20. Proof-Carrying Contracts: Commitments AI Agents Cannot Break. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28484

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents

Developing visual perception models for active agents and sensorimotor control are cumbersome to be done in the physical world, as existing algorithms are too slow to efficiently learn in real-time and robots are fragile and costly. This has given rise to learning-in-simulation which consequently casts a question on whether the results transfer to real-world. In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of developing real-world perception for active agents, propose Gibson Virtual Environment for this purpose, and showcase sample perceptual tasks learned therein. Gibson is based on virtualizing real spaces, rather than using artificially designed ones, and currently includes over 1400 floor spaces from 572 full buildings. The main characteristics of Gibson are: I. being from the real-world and reflecting its semantic complexity, II. having an internal synthesis mechanism, "Goggles", enabling deploying the trained models in real-world without needing further domain adaptation, III. embodiment of agents and making them subject to constraints of physics and space.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

GenoMAS: Guided Multi-Agent Programming for Scientific Discovery from Genomic Data

Gene expression analysis holds the key to many biomedical discoveries, yet extracting insights from raw transcriptomic data remains challenging due to the complexity of multiple large, semi-structured files and the need for extensive domain expertise. Current approaches either rely on inflexible workflows that fail in edge cases or fully autonomous agents that lack the precision required for rigorous scientific inquiry. GenoMAS addresses this by presenting a team of LLM-based agents that integrates structured workflows with autonomous adaptability, orchestrating diverse specialized agents through typed message-passing protocols. At its core lies a guided-planning framework where programming agents decompose task guidelines into Action Units and dynamically choose to advance, revise, bypass, or backtrack, maintaining logical coherence while adapting to the idiosyncrasies of genomic data. On the GenoTEX benchmark, GenoMAS achieves 89.13% CSC for data preprocessing and 60.48% $F_1$ for identifying trait-associated genes, surpassing prior art by 10.61% and 16.85%. Beyond transcriptomics, it outperforms strong agent baselines on ScienceAgentBench and DiscoveryBench, two independent bioinformatics benchmarks. Qualitative analysis shows that GenoMAS identifies gene-phenotype associations that are biologically plausible and corroborated by the literature.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

How Far Are LLMs from Symbolic Planners? An NLP-Based Perspective

AI planning provides agents the ability to act autonomously towards achieving a goal in a given environment. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced the prospect of using unstructured input for planning, making LLMs in planning an active area of research, especially for supporting autonomous agents. However, LLMs remain unreliable as long-horizon planners, since some of the plans they produce contain mistaken or hallucinated actions; executing such plans could lead to unexpected and harmful outcomes. Existing benchmarks for LLMs in planning primarily rely on binary evaluation metrics, providing limited insight into the quality of plans that do not achieve the goal, and how far those are from becoming valid. In this paper, we frame the evaluation of LLMs in planning as a natural language processing (NLP) task, as LLMs are themselves NLP models. We propose a pipeline comprising three NLP-based steps that assess plan quality from complementary perspectives, followed by a symbolic planning step to achieve a valid plan, to provide a finer-grained understanding of the quality of invalid plans. In our experiments, we find no clear evidence of logical derivation or state-tracking during LLM plan generation -- on average, for all non-empty plans, only 3.55 actions per plan are executable, despite symbolically-generated optimal plans having an average length of 9.47 actions, which suggests that LLMs are still far from the reliability of symbolic planners. Our suite of metrics is further used to investigate patterns in LLM plan generation over time, and can provide a useful metric for assessing the quality of individual invalid plans.

cs.AI↗