Authority-Inference Separation in Agentic Finance: First-Line Control, Blockchain Enforcement, and Replayable Assurance

Hui Gong; Michail Samawi; Francesca Medda

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.30519

Authority-Inference Separation in Agentic Finance: First-Line Control, Blockchain Enforcement, and Replayable Assurance

Hui Gong·Michail Samawi·Francesca Medda

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI agents can select tools, counterparties, and transaction parameters, yet inference should not itself confer authority to execute a financial action. This study develops and evaluates Authority-Inference Separation (AIS), an intent-centered architecture for bounded agentic finance. AIS treats a financial action intent as the control object: a machine-generated proposal can receive temporary executable authority only after an independent deterministic control plane validates registered agent identity, accountable ownership, mandate and risk-appetite lineage, policy version, state, approvals, and exact economic semantics. Blockchain can then enforce the operational representation of granted authority and record portable settlement evidence, while institutional legitimacy, service delivery, accounting classification, and human accountability remain off-chain obligations. Evaluation combines four-domain instantiation, official BIS and MAS cases, a 48-fixture executable prototype, and a public-ledger observability test. Across 36 synthetic authorization attacks, a direct-agent baseline accepted 36 attack effects, a prompt-policy baseline accepted 20, and AIS accepted none; all three accepted 8/8 admissible fixtures. AIS also rejected 4/4 token replays and 8/8 recipient or rail substitutions, withheld completion in 4/4 service-delivery failures, and populated all 13 defined evidence fields. A test of 1,700 recent Base transactions associated with public x402 facilitator addresses shows that public ledgers can evidence settlement and selected authorization parameters but cannot establish institutional mandate, legal accountability, service delivery, or accounting treatment. AIS and blockchain are therefore complementary: AIS decides whether a specific intent may act, while blockchain can make granted authority bounded, executable, and independently observable.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.GN cs.CR

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Hui Gong, Michail Samawi, Francesca Medda. 2026-08-31. Authority-Inference Separation in Agentic Finance: First-Line Control, Blockchain Enforcement, and Replayable Assurance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30519

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

Discover connections

cs.CR subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Algorithmic Collusion by Large Language Models

We conduct experiments with algorithmic pricing agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs). In oligopoly settings, LLM-based pricing agents quickly and autonomously reach supracompetitive prices and profits. Variation in seemingly innocuous phrases in LLM instructions ("prompts") substantially influence the degree of supracompetitive pricing. We develop novel techniques for behavioral analysis of LLMs and use them to uncover price-war concerns as a contributing factor. Our results extend to auction settings. Our findings uncover unique challenges to any future regulation of LLM-based pricing agents, and AI-based pricing agents more broadly.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2026

Individualized Algorithmic Advice as a Strategic Signal on Competitive Markets

As algorithms increasingly mediate competitive decision-making, their influence extends beyond individual outcomes to shaping strategic market dynamics. In our experiment, we examined how algorithmic advice affects human behavior in a classic economic game with a unique, non-collusive, and analytically traceable equilibrium. Participants (N = 129) played a Cournot quantity competition with equilibrium-aligned or strategically biased algorithmic recommendations. While individualized equilibrium advice supported stable convergence, collusively downward-biased advice led to sustained underproduction and supracompetitive profits - hallmarks of tacit collusion. Participants' quantities converged faster and more consistently toward individualized than collective equilibrium advice, potentially due to an objective quality advantage or greater perceived ownership of the former. These findings demonstrate that algorithmic advice can function as a strategic signal, shaping coordination even without explicit communication. The results echo real-world concerns about algorithmic collusion and underscore the need for careful design and oversight of algorithmic decision-support systems in competitive environments.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Performance Manipulation: Labor Market Implications in AI-assisted Era

Performance manipulation arises when agents exploit easily measurable, routine tasks to inflate observable outcomes without contributing genuine innovation or expert judgment. We formalize this phenomenon in a game-theoretic model in which agents allocate effort along two margins. Creative effort is non-routine cognitive labor whose return is complementary to the agent's private expertise; it is the scarce input that principals seek. Mechanistic effort is the execution of well-defined, rule-based tasks that raise performance independently of expertise, a commoditized input that AI heavily augments. We establish the existence of a symmetric, monotone pure-strategy equilibrium and show that performance-based screening remains viable so long as evaluations retain a sufficient creative component, but collapses into an uninformative pooling equilibrium once AI capability grows large enough to crowd out creative effort. Comparing contest allocations against a single-agent baseline isolates performance manipulation as the competition-induced over-investment in mechanistic effort, which we show is undertaken systematically by low-type agents but not high-type ones. We further prove that more sharply skewed reward structures mitigate this friction by eliciting greater creative effort across the participant pool. Finally, using a novel, language-model-based methodology to measure both effort types from nearly 1,500 Kaggle competition scripts, we provide robust empirical support for the model's predictions.

econ.GN↗