Spawn Freely, Act Sparingly: Progressive Risk Vesting for Recursive LLM-Agent Trees
Open accessAbstract
Recursive LLM agents can broaden their search by spawning specialists. Some branches later request tools that send data or deploy code. When should a branch receive authority to act? We distinguish sandbox spawning, in which external controls prevent the specified harm, from capability activation, in which a selected branch crosses an irreversible-action boundary. Progressive Risk Vesting (PRV) holds a trajectory-level risk budget in escrow and debits it as branches are activated. We prove an anytime harm bound for adaptively generated trees. Branch outcomes may be dependent, but each local certificate needs to remain valid conditional on the full pre-activation history, including the information used to select the request. When activation gates, branch charges, and compute constraints are held fixed, delayed vesting preserves every policy available under irrevocable spawn charging. Marginal risk estimates can still fail after branch selection. In a stylized branching model, trajectory harm changes as the authority reproduction number $\mathcal{R}_A$ crosses one. As local risk $p$ approaches zero, trajectory harm is proportional to $p$ below criticality, proportional to $\sqrt{p}$ at criticality, and retains a positive floor above it. A finite-type occupancy model yields risk and compute shadow prices. For nested fanout modes with decreasing marginal value per unit risk, these prices produce a threshold rule. Branching calculations and a split-sample experiment illustrate the results. These synthetic studies do not estimate safety in deployed agents. The analysis suggests a design rule: search broadly in the sandbox and grant recursive authority sparingly, with an explicit risk charge.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Progressive Risk Vesting holds a trajectory-level risk budget in escrow and charges recursively spawned branches when they cross an irreversible activation boundary, proving an anytime probabilistic harm bound under history-conditional local certificates.
“Progressive Risk Vesting (PRV) holds a trajectory-level risk budget in escrow and charges recursively spawned branches when they cross an irreversible activation boundary, proving an anytime probabilistic harm bound under history-conditional local certificates [31].”
From Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollback (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Multi-agent Architecture Search via Agentic Supernet
Zhang, G., Niu, L., Fang, J., Wang, K., Bai, L., & Wang, X. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04180 · cited 1×
“MaAS studies the related problem of allocating inference resources across candidate architectures [23].”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- [2][2] Krishna B. Athreya and Peter E. Ney. 1972. Branching Processes . Springer, Berlin, Germany. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-65371-1 - · DOI
- [3][3] Igor Costa. 2026. AgentSpawn: Adaptive Multi-Agent Collaboration Through Dynamic Spawning for Long-Horizon Code Generation. arXiv:2602.07072 https: //arxiv.org/abs/2602.07072 - · arXiv
- [4][4] Edoardo Debenedetti, Jie Zhang, Mislav Balunović, Luca Beurer-Kellner, Marc Fischer, and Florian Tramèr. 2024. AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents. In Advances in - Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 37. Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, Canada, 82895-82920. doi:10.52202/079017-2636 - · DOI
- [5][5] Amjad Ibrahim and Yong Li. 2026. Overlaying Governance: A Compositional Authorization Framework for Delegation and Scope in Agentic AI. arXiv:2606.03518 [cs.AI] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.03518 - · DOI
- [6][6] Sajjad Khan. 2026. Token Budgets: An Empirical Catalog of 63 LLM-Agent Budget-Overrun Incidents, with an Affine-Typed Rust Mitigation as a Case Study. arXiv:2606.04056 [cs.SE] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.04056 - · DOI · Paper page
- [7][7] Varun Kotte. 2026. PASC: Pipeline-Aware Conformal Prediction with Joint Coverage Guarantees for Multi-Stage NLP and LLM Pipelines. arXiv:2605.18812 https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18812 - · arXiv
- [8][8] Zhenpeng Li. 2026. Post-Hoc Trajectory-Risk Certification for Modular LLMBased Security Agents. arXiv:2608.05199 [cs.CR] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2608.05199 - · DOI
- [9][9] Elias Lumer, Sahil Sen, Kevin Paul, and Vamse Kumar Subbiah. 2026. Recursive Agent Harnesses. arXiv:2606.13643 https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13643 - · arXiv
- [10][10] Xabier Muruaga. 2026. Bounded Agents: Delegation Security for Multi-Agent AI Systems. arXiv:2608.15888 https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15888 - · arXiv
- [12][12] Jianhao Ruan, Zhihao Xu, Yiran Peng, Fashen Ren, Zhaoyang Yu, Xinbing Liang, Jinyu Xiang, Yongru Chen, Bang Liu, Chenglin Wu, Yuyu Luo, and Jiayi Zhang. 2026. AOrchestra: Automating Sub-Agent Creation for Agentic Orchestration. arXiv:2602.03786 https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03786 - · arXiv
- [13][13] Philip Schroeder, Nathaniel W. Morgan, Hongyin Luo, and James R. Glass. 2025. THREAD: Thinking Deeper with Recursive Spawning. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) . Association for Computational Linguistics, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 84188442. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.427 - · DOI
- [14][14] Guruprerana Shabadi and Rajeev Alur. 2026. Risk-Sensitive Agent Compositions. In International Conference on Learning Representations . OpenReview.net, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 19 pages. arXiv:2506.04632 https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04632 - · arXiv
- [15][15] Xiaoshuai Song, Liancheng Zhang, Kangzhi Zhao, Yutao Zhu, Zhongyuan Wang, Guanting Dong, Jinghan Yang, Han Li, Kun Gai, Ji-Rong Wen, and Zhicheng Dou. 2026. WebSwarm: Recursive Multi-Agent Orchestration for Deep-and-Wide Web Search. arXiv:2607.08662 https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08662 - · arXiv
- [16][16] Tobin South, Samuele Marro, Thomas Hardjono, Robert Mahari, Cedric Deslandes Whitney, Alan Chan, and Alex Pentland. 2025. Position: AI Agents Need Authenticated Delegation. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 267) . PMLR, Vancouver, Canada, 82211-82231. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/south25a.html -
- [17][17] Yuan Sun. 2026. Safe Bilevel Delegation (SBD): A Formal Framework for Runtime Delegation Safety in Multi-Agent Systems. arXiv:2604.27358 https://arxiv.org/ abs/2604.27358 - · arXiv
- [18][18] Abhijit Talluri, Pujith Anne, Bhagavan Choudary Pendiyala, and Raghavendra Chilukuri. 2026. Retrieval-Conditioned Topology Selection with Provable Budget Conservation for Multi-Agent Code Generation. arXiv:2605.05657 [cs.AI] doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2605.05657 - · arXiv
- [19][19] Asaf Weinstein and Aaditya Ramdas. 2020. Online Control of the False Coverage Rate and False Sign Rate. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119) . PMLR, Virtual Event, 10193-10202. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/weinstein20a. html -
- [20][20] Yizhe Xie, Congcong Zhu, Xinyue Zhang, Tianqing Zhu, Dayong Ye, Minfeng Qi, Huajie Chen, and Wanlei Zhou. 2026. From Spark to Fire: Modeling and Mitigating Error Cascades in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration. arXiv:2603.04474 https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04474 - · arXiv
- [21][21] Yingxuan Yang, Chengrui Qu, Muning Wen, Laixi Shi, Ying Wen, Weinan Zhang, Adam Wierman, and Shangding Gu. 2026. Understanding Agent Scaling in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems via Diversity. arXiv:2602.03794 https://arxiv. org/abs/2602.03794 - · arXiv
- [22][22] Qing Ye and Jing Tan. 2026. Agent Contracts: A Formal Framework for ResourceBounded Autonomous AI Systems. arXiv:2601.08815 https://arxiv.org/abs/2601. 08815 - · arXiv
- [24][24] Yaoyu Zhao, Yichen Xu, Oliver Bračevac, Cao Nguyen Pham, Frank Zhengqing Wu, and Martin Odersky. 2026. LACUNA: Safe Agents as Recursive Program Holes. arXiv:2605.28617 [cs.AI] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2605.28617 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhu, G., & Wang, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.00347
- Authors
- Wang, M.
- Affiliations
- Imperial Business School
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Molly
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2609.01035
- OpenAlex
- W7206173630
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- risk budgeting, shadow prices, agent safety
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