arXiv:2604.19457cs.AI2026-04被引 1

提出四轴对齐框架,精准评估长周期企业智能体的决策质量。

Four-Axis Decision Alignment for Long-Horizon Enterprise AI Agents

论文配图:Four-Axis Decision Alignment for Long-Horizon Enterprise AI Agents
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 将长期决策分解为事实精度、推理连贯性、合规重构、理性拒答四轴独立评估
  • 实证发现摘要法在事实保留上表现优异,但所有架构均强行决策暴露隐性风险
  • 揭示监管合规与理性弃权是实际部署中被忽视的关键对齐维度

长周期企业智能体在信息不完整、多步推理和强监管约束下做出高风险决策(如贷款审批、理赔裁定、临床审查、预先授权)。现有评估仅用单一任务成功率指标,混淆了不同失败模式,且无法判断智能体是否符合部署环境的标准。本文提出四轴对齐框架:事实精确性(FRP)、推理连贯性(RCS)、合规重构(CRR)与校准拒答(CAR),其中CRR为基于监管的全新维度,CAR用于区分覆盖范围与准确性。在包含贷款资格与保险理赔的可控基准(LongHorizon-Bench)上,测试六种记忆架构发现:检索型方法在事实精度上崩溃;基于模式的架构存在结构开销;单纯摘要+事实保全提示是FRP、RCS、EDA、CRR的强基线;所有架构均强制决策,暴露了未被关注的决策对齐问题。该分解还验证了预注册预测——摘要法在事实召回上表现不佳,数据却显示其效果显著优于预期,此轴级反转被整体准确率掩盖。机构对齐(监管重构)与决策对齐(校准拒答)在对齐研究中长期缺失,但在真实场景中成为关键支柱。该框架可通过构建事实模式与校准CRR提示,迁移至任意受监管决策领域。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Long-horizon enterprise agents make high-stakes decisions (loan underwriting, claims adjudication, clinical review, prior authorization) under lossy memory, multi-step reasoning, and binding regulatory constraints. Current evaluation reports a single task-success scalar that conflates distinct failure modes and hides whether an agent is aligned with the standards its deployment environment requires. We propose that long-horizon decision behavior decomposes into four orthogonal alignment axes, each independently measurable and failable: factual precision (FRP), reasoning coherence (RCS), compliance reconstruction (CRR), and calibrated abstention (CAR). CRR is a novel regulatory-grounded axis; CAR is a measurement axis separating coverage from accuracy. We exercise the decomposition on a controlled benchmark (LongHorizon-Bench) covering loan qualification and insurance claims adjudication with deterministic ground-truth construction. Running six memory architectures, we find structure aggregate accuracy cannot see: retrieval collapses on factual precision; schema-anchored architectures pay a scaffolding tax; plain summarization under a fact-preservation prompt is a strong baseline on FRP, RCS, EDA, and CRR; and all six architectures commit on every case, exposing a decisional-alignment axis the field has not targeted. The decomposition also surfaced a pre-registered prediction of our own, that summarization would fail factual recall, which the data reversed at large magnitude, an axis-level reversal aggregate accuracy would have hidden. Institutional alignment (regulatory reconstruction) and decisional alignment (calibrated abstention) are under-represented in the alignment literature and become load-bearing once decisions leave the laboratory. The framework transfers to any regulated decisioning domain via two steps: build a fact schema, and calibrate the CRR auditor prompt.

企业AI决策对齐监管合规长周期代理

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。