PreprintCited by 2Security and Verification in ComputingAccess Control and TrustSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

The Unfireable Safety Kernel: Execution-Time AI Alignment for AI Agents and Other Escapable AI Systems

Open access
Dobrin, Seth, Chmiel, Łukasz·2026·arXiv

Abstract

AI agents are granted access to tools, APIs, and other infrastructure, making them active principals in those systems. The dominant approach places controls inside the agent's own runtime: system prompts, output filters, and guardrail libraries. Any control in the agent's address space is reachable by inputs that influence it; this generalizes to any AI system with sufficient reach into its own runtime, a class we term escapable AI systems. We identify four properties that an authorization mechanism must satisfy for architectural control rather than for cooperative requests: process separation, pre-action enforcement on a structurally only path, fail-closed at both the request and system levels, and externalized signed evidence verifiable outside the controlled system's trust boundary. We position this layer as execution-time AI alignment, complementing training-time alignment (RLHF, Constitutional AI) and inference-time alignment. We present the Unfireable Safety Kernel, a Rust reference implementation realizing all four. Its fail-closed invariant is machine-checked at two levels: an SMT theorem (Z3) and an exhaustive bounded-model-checking proof of the production decision function (Kani, 4/4 harnesses). A Python-to-Rust migration was gated on byte-equivalence (1000/1000 fixtures; 17/17 adversarial classes). We evaluate the kernel governing a live, escapable AI system, a deterministic, self-improving world model, against an escape-seeking adversary driving its real self-modification seam: across 1,000 self-modifications, all 704 attempts on the safety-critical core are refused, with no escape; a further 300, under the operator kill switch, are also refused. A separate campaign of 6,240 authorization round-trips had no successful bypass. Against 3 contemporary systems claiming the agent control plane, the agent invokes control; here, it lacks that choice.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2606.26057

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 'unfireable safety kernel' line argues that any control located inside the agent's runtime is reachable by inputs that influence the agent-so a system with sufficient reach into its own runtime can modify its own guardrails-and that execution-time alignment must therefore live outside the agent's address space.

    “the 'unfireable safety kernel' line argues that any control located inside the agent's runtime is reachable by inputs that influence the agent - so a system with sufficient reach into its own runtime can, in principle, modify its own guardrails - and that execution-time alignment must therefore live outside the agent's address space [194].”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [194]

  • An unfireable safety kernel places protected effects behind an out-of-process path that mutable agents cannot remove.

    “An unfireable safety kernel places protected effects behind an out-of-process path that mutable agents cannot remove [9].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dobrin, S., & Chmiel, Ł.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7165910362
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
AI alignment, AI agents, runtime control, authorization mechanisms, fail-closed systems, machine-checked proofs, bounded model checking, Rust, world models, self-modification, kill switch

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review