IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2605.25632.html

Insuring Every Action: An Authority Frontier Framework for Runtime Actuarial Control of Autonomous AI Agents

Author

Listed:
  • Hao-Hsuan Chen

Abstract

Autonomous AI agents increasingly issue side-effect-bearing actions: database mutations, refunds, payments, external commitments. We propose the Actuarial Action Interface (AAI), a deterministic runtime contract that prices each such action against a contractually fixed safe default under a time-consistent risk mapping, and gates execution against a per-boundary reserve capital budget. We then develop the Authority Frontier, an evaluation primitive measuring how much autonomous authority the runtime releases at each level of reserve capital. The framework provides (i) a deterministic quote-bind-commit protocol with toll-bounded capability tokens; (ii) a universal seven-class action taxonomy mapping heterogeneous tool calls to comparable authority units; (iii) replay determinism and pathwise reserve coverage under alpha-spending; (iv) cross-domain normalization via full reserve demand C_full and capital metrics Capital@k. We instantiate AAI across four agentic environments (database mutation, customer-service refund, and the public tau-bench retail and airline tool-use traces) and report a live Postgres panel in which three Azure-hosted models propose actions through the same contract. The frontier exhibits a common low-reserve refusal and intermediate-release pattern across domains, with saturation only where the budget grid reaches full reserve demand; required reserve capital varies by 22x (Capital@50 from 289 to 6457). The framework does not force domains into the same shape; it surfaces each domain's actuarial geometry. In the live panel the contract prevents realized loss across all three models at low budget while differing in underwriting persistence under denial: model identity is an actuarial underwriting variable. The contribution is a benchmark-ready evaluation framework for runtime actuarial control of autonomous-agent side effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Hao-Hsuan Chen, 2026. "Insuring Every Action: An Authority Frontier Framework for Runtime Actuarial Control of Autonomous AI Agents," Papers 2605.25632, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2605.25632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.25632
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Eling & Werner Schnell, 2016. "What do we know about cyber risk and cyber risk insurance?," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 17(5), pages 474-491, November.
    2. Kang Boda & Jerzy Filar, 2006. "Time Consistent Dynamic Risk Measures," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 63(1), pages 169-186, February.
    3. Jocelyne Bion-Nadal, 2008. "Dynamic risk measures: Time consistency and risk measures from BMO martingales," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 219-244, April.
    4. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496, December.
    5. Viral V. Acharya & Lasse H. Pedersen & Thomas Philippon & Matthew Richardson, 2017. "Measuring Systemic Risk," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(1), pages 2-47.
    6. Roorda, Berend & Schumacher, J.M., 2007. "Time consistency conditions for acceptability measures, with an application to Tail Value at Risk," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 209-230, March.
    7. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hao-Hsuan Chen, 2026. "Foundations of a Time-Consistent Counterfactual Actuarial Runtime for Autonomous AI Agents," Papers 2605.26508, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hao-Hsuan Chen, 2026. "Foundations of a Time-Consistent Counterfactual Actuarial Runtime for Autonomous AI Agents," Papers 2605.26508, arXiv.org.
    2. Rudloff, Birgit & Street, Alexandre & Valladão, Davi M., 2014. "Time consistency and risk averse dynamic decision models: Definition, interpretation and practical consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(3), pages 743-750.
    3. Zachary Feinstein & Birgit Rudloff, 2022. "Scalar Multivariate Risk Measures with a Single Eligible Asset," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 899-922, May.
    4. Dan A. Iancu & Marek Petrik & Dharmashankar Subramanian, 2015. "Tight Approximations of Dynamic Risk Measures," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 655-682, March.
    5. Acciaio, Beatrice & Föllmer, Hans & Penner, Irina, 2012. "Risk assessment for uncertain cash flows: model ambiguity, discounting ambiguity, and the role of bubbles," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50118, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    7. Nan Guo & Steven Kou & Bin Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2025. "A Theory of Credit Rating Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(4), pages 3583-3599, April.
    8. Ji, Liuyan & Tan, Ken Seng & Yang, Fan, 2021. "Tail dependence and heavy tailedness in extreme risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 282-293.
    9. Hirbod Assa & Peng Liu, 2024. "Factor risk measures," Papers 2404.08475, arXiv.org.
    10. Bion-Nadal, Jocelyne, 2009. "Time consistent dynamic risk processes," Stochastic Processes and their Applications, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 633-654, February.
    11. Kim, Dowon & Ryu, Heelang & Lee, Jiwoong & Kim, Kyoung-Kuk, 2022. "Balancing risk: Generation expansion planning under climate mitigation scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 665-679.
    12. Bernardi, Mauro & Maruotti, Antonello & Petrella, Lea, 2017. "Multiple risk measures for multivariate dynamic heavy–tailed models," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-32.
    13. Müller, Fernanda Maria & Santos, Samuel Solgon & Righi, Marcelo Brutti, 2023. "A description of the COVID-19 outbreak role in financial risk forecasting," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    14. Tomasz R. Bielecki & Igor Cialenco & Marcin Pitera, 2016. "A survey of time consistency of dynamic risk measures and dynamic performance measures in discrete time: LM-measure perspective," Papers 1603.09030, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2017.
    15. Zang, Xin & Jiang, Fan & Xia, Chenxi & Yang, Jingping, 2024. "Random distortion risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 51-73.
    16. Davi Michel Valladão & Álvaro Veiga & Alexandre Street, 2018. "A Linear Stochastic Programming Model for Optimal Leveraged Portfolio Selection," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 51(4), pages 1021-1032, April.
    17. Roorda Berend & Schumacher Hans, 2013. "Membership conditions for consistent families of monetary valuations," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 30(3), pages 255-280, August.
    18. Stadje, Mitja, 2010. "Extending dynamic convex risk measures from discrete time to continuous time: A convergence approach," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 391-404, December.
    19. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2021. "Backtesting Systemic Risk Forecasts using Multi-Objective Elicitability," Papers 2104.10673, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    20. D. Madan & M. Pistorius & M. Stadje, 2017. "On dynamic spectral risk measures, a limit theorem and optimal portfolio allocation," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1073-1102, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2605.25632. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.