mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

KAIJU: An Executive Kernel for Intent-Gated Execution of LLM Agents

arXiv 2604.02375 ↗First posted 31 Mar 2026cs.SE cs.PLcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-calling autonomous agents based on large language models using ReAct exhibit three limitations: serial latency, quadratic context growth, and vulnerability to prompt injection and hallucination. Recent work moves towards separating planning from execution but in each case the model remains coupled to the execution mechanics. We introduce a system-level abstraction for LLM agents which decouples the execution of agent workflows from the LLM reasoning layer. We define two first-class abstractions: (1) Intent-Gated Execution (IGX), a security paradigm that enforces intent at execution, and (2) an Executive Kernel that manages scheduling, tool dispatch, dependency resolution, failures and security. In KAIJU, the LLM plans upfront, optimistically scheduling tools in parallel with dependency-aware parameter injection. Tools are authorised via IGX based on four independent variables: scope, intent, impact, and clearance (external approval). KAIJU supports three adaptive execution modes (Reflect, nReflect, and Orchestrator), providing progressively finer-grained execution control apt for complex investigation and deep analysis or research. Empirical evaluation against a ReAct baseline shows that KAIJU has a latency penalty on simple queries due to planning overhead, convergence at moderate complexity, and a structural advantage on computational queries requiring parallel data gathering. Beyond latency, the separation enforces behavioural guarantees that ReAct cannot match through prompting alone. Code available at https://github.com/compdeep/kaiju

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2026.

Builds on

7 of 11 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025AgentArch: A Comprehensive Benchmark to Evaluate Agent Architectures in Enterprise13 Sep

Other references · 6

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
  3. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Designcited by 297
  4. 2023An LLM Compiler for Parallel Function Callingcited by 179
  5. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Controlcited by 141
  6. 2025The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injectionscited by 129

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Architecting Resilient LLM Agents: A Guide to Secure Plan-then-Execute Implementations
  2. 2026The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestration
  3. 2026From Atomic Actions to Standard Operating Procedures: Iterative Tool Optimization for Self-Evolving LLM Agents
  4. 2026From Agent Loops to Structured Graphs:A Scheduler-Theoretic Framework for LLM Agent Execution
  5. 2026Agentao: A Policy-Governed Runtime Harness for Embeddable Tool-Using LLM Agents
  6. 2026Utility-Guided Agent Orchestration for Efficient LLM Tool Use
  7. 2026Callability Is Not Operability: Controlled Interface Interventions for LLM Agents
  8. 2026AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?