Papers for

financial technology engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

AI execution boundaries ensure one authorized action per intent

From Intent to Execution Grant: An Execution-Boundary Conformance Profile for High-Risk AI Actions

Abstract: AI agents increasingly propose actions with external consequences, including financial transfers, infrastructure changes, software deployments, disclosures, and physical actuation. Authorization engines, policy languages, runtime monitors, provenance mechanisms, and agent guardrails provide important foundations, but do not necessarily define a common semantic contract for the final transition from a particular candidate action to execution authority. We specify EBL-Core, an execution-boundary conformance profile for deciding whether one canonical, fully materialized AI-generated candidate may receive action-scoped execution authority under explicit conditions. It binds a structured intent object, Root and Operational Policies, evidence obligations, typed evidence, context, time, and a verifiable Decision Derivation through an Execution Release Contract (ERC). An ERC is not an authority-bearing token; a verified ALLOW ERC may support a separate Execution Grant governed by Redemption-time validation. EBL-Core specifies action binding, policy non-weakening, evidence handling, deterministic adjudication, derivation verification, and grant lifecycle behavior. An accompanying reference artifact provides schemas, adjudication, separate verification and Semantic Replay, and a linearizable in-memory grant store. In the retained run, 34 static vectors and 15 lifecycle checks matched expected outcomes. Across 100 trials, 32 concurrent Redemption attempts yielded exactly one successful Redemption and protected test effect per trial; 100 Revoke-Redeem races ended in valid terminal outcomes. These bounded results demonstrate executability of the specified subset, not human-intent correctness, evidence truth, complete mediation, production readiness, mechanized correctness, or deployment-level security.

Thu 10 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
AI systems often suggest actions that affect the real world, like moving money or changing software. The authors created a clear method to decide if a suggested AI action should be allowed to actually happen, based on verified rules and evidence. Their system makes sure only one valid execution happens per proposed action, even when many attempts are made at the same time. They tested their method thoroughly to show it works as intended, though it doesn’t guarantee the AI’s actual intentions or evidence correctness.
Open 2609.11596v1