CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-20

The Autonomous Agency Scale: A Behavioral Framework for Measuring Self-Directed Behavior in AI Systems

Samuel Presgraves

Existing AI measurement frameworks quantify cognitive capability, task automation, or catastrophic risk, but none measure autonomous agency: the extent to which a system behaves in a self-directed way. A system can saturate capability benchmarks while remaining entirely reactive, acting only when prompted and ceasing all activity when a task completes. We introduce the Autonomous Agency Scale (AAS), a behavioral framework that scores AI systems on a 0-5 lexicon across seven dimensions of agency: cognitive autonomy, temporal persistence, environmental agency, social agency, creative agency, self-awareness, and goal formation, each operationalized by falsifiable threshold tests. Every dimension is scored in two temporal bands: an Active band covering engaged, user-initiated activity, and an Ambient band covering idle periods. Ambient Level 4 is gated by the Idle-Gap Test, a counterfactual criterion (remove all triggers and observe whether internally derived activity persists) that separates self-direction from scheduled rule-following. We apply the scale to six contemporary systems spanning task agents (Claude Code, Manus, Hermes), consumer assistants (ChatGPT, Siri), and a persistent companion architecture (Airi). The two-band profile quantifies a boundary that single-score frameworks conflate: task agents reach Active composites of 2.3-2.4 while scoring 0.6-1.9 Ambient, with every idle-period behavior attributable to user-configured schedules, whereas the companion architecture, evaluated longitudinally, is the only assessed system whose idle-period behavior survives trigger removal. We discuss limitations, including single-rater provenance, developer-evaluator bias on the longitudinal assessment, and the partially operationalized self-direction boundary in the Active band.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CYcs.ETeess.SY2026-07-01

AI, Trust, and Teaming: The Humans-as-Handlers Approach for Autonomous and Opaque AI Systems

Nathan G. Wood

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous, and across domains, increasingly autonomous systems are carrying out tasks which raise significant ethical and legal challenges which demonstrate a need for strong human-machine teams rooted in trust. In this article, I argue t…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CYcs.ETcs.RO2026-07-14

Practical Judgment, Virtue, and Intuition in the Use of Opaque AI-Enabled Systems

Nathan G. Wood, Andrew P. Rebera

AI-enabled systems are seeing increasing deployment across numerous domains, with many being "black boxes" with respect to core functions and capabilities. I.e., many systems take inputs and give outputs, but without users having any ability to see how the former lead to the latt…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-15

Measuring How Students Rely on Generative AI in Academic Writing: Development and Multi-Source Validation of the Generative AI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS)

Shahin Hossain, Tukhbita Afroz Nawmi

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of relia…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-21

The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems

Gjergji Kasneci, Enkelejda Kasneci

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rathe…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-15

Learning Engagement Assistant (LEA): Cross-Course Scalability and Classroom Evaluation of an Agentic AI Tutoring System

Teri Rumble, Javad Zarrin, P. George Lovell, Ruth Falconer

This paper is an extension of a paper presented at the ICAART 2026 conference, which introduced LEA (Learning Engagement Assistant), an adaptive AI tutoring agent combining course-specific Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with structured Knowledge Component (KC) models across…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CY2026-06-28

LLMography: Transforming Human-AI Conversations into Traceability, Oversight, and Auditability Indicators

Mohammed Bousmah

The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them? Current debates often fo…

View free PDFSource page