The Unfireable Safety Kernel: Execution-Time AI Alignment for AI Agents and Other Escapable AI Systems
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollback (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“…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 [191].”
Zhu, G., & Wang, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.00347
- Authors
- Dobrin, S., & Chmiel, Ł.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.26057
- OpenAlex
- W7165910362
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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