arXiv preprint ·
Local Allow, Global Deny: Why Per-Action Authorization Does Not Compose in LLM Agents
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Autonomous LLM agents act through tools under per-action authorization: a local guard screens each tool call in isolation. We show that local authorization does not compose into global authorization. A compositional authorization failure (CAF) is a locally authorized execution, or a pair of locally authorized executions, that violates a global policy spanning intent, purpose, provenance, consent, and delegation. We characterize CAFs along two axes, expressiveness (single-trace safety versus relational k-safety) and observability (a ladder of monitor profiles). Our central result is an impossibility: relational purpose violations form a 2-safety hyperproperty with no per-trace locus of blame, so a per-action monitor that never raises a false alarm detects none of them, independent of the underlying model or decision procedure; they become visible only under cross-execution monitoring, which none of the six guardrails we survey implements. We make this constructive with AL-SYNTH, a SAT/SMT synthesizer (using no language model) that emits minimal CAF witnesses, each checked against an exhaustive oracle. The empirical signature is sharp: across nine LLM judges the per-action view approves the synthesized witness almost without exception, blocking it at a rate comparable to a benign control, yet the same models flag it when shown the two executions together. Per-action authorization is therefore structurally insufficient for relational policy conjuncts not reducible to single-trace safety: to bound them, a monitor must compare executions or accept false alarms.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Cryptography & Security
VERDICT: Multi-Agent Parallel Modular Verification
Proof-Carrying Contracts: Commitments AI Agents Cannot Break
TrustedCode: Evaluating Large Language Models for Developing Trusted Code through Automated Program Verification
Simply Logical -- The First Three Decades
FVQKD: A Formal Verification of Quantum Key Distribution Security in Rocq
Get the few papers worth your time in Cryptography & Security every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.