mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems

arXiv 2604.02767 ↗First posted 3 Apr 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.MAcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

When Agent A delegates to Agent B, which invokes Tool C on behalf of User X, no existing framework can answer: whose authorization chain led to this action, and where did it violate policy? This paper introduces SentinelAgent, a formal framework for verifiable delegation chains in federal multi-agent AI systems. The Delegation Chain Calculus (DCC) defines seven properties - six deterministic (authority narrowing, policy preservation, forensic reconstructibility, cascade containment, scope-action conformance, output schema conformance) and one probabilistic (intent preservation) - with four meta-theorems and one proposition establishing the practical infeasibility of deterministic intent verification. The Intent-Preserving Delegation Protocol (IPDP) enforces all seven properties at runtime through a non-LLM Delegation Authority Service. A three-point verification lifecycle achieves 100% combined TPR at 0% FPR on DelegationBench v4 (516 scenarios, 10 attack categories, 13 federal domains). Under black-box adversarial conditions, the DAS blocks 30/30 attacks with 0 false positives. Deterministic properties are unbreakable under adversarial stress testing; intent verification degrades to 13% against sophisticated paraphrasing. Fine-tuning the NLI model on 190 government delegation examples improves P2 from 1.7% to 88.3% TPR (5-fold cross-validated, F1=82.1%). Properties P1, P3-P7 are mechanically verified via TLA+ model checking across 2.7 million states with zero violations. Even when intent verification is evaded, the remaining six properties constrain the adversary to permitted API calls, conformant outputs, traceable actions, bounded cascades, and compliant behavior.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2026.

Builds on

7 of 29 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw13 Mar
  2. 2026Agent Behavioral Contracts: Formal Specification and Runtime Enforcement for Reliable Autonomous AI Agents25 Feb
  3. 2026Agents of Chaos23 Feb
  4. 2026Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Framework17 Jan
  5. 2025ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning26 Mar
  6. 2025Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks20 Feb

Other references · 1

  1. 2025Authenticated Delegation and Authorized AI Agentscited by 63

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Bounded Agents: Delegation Security for Multi-Agent AI Systems
  2. 2025Agentic JWT: A Secure Delegation Protocol for Autonomous AI Agents
  3. 2026Observability for Delegated Execution in Agentic AI Systems
  4. 2026HDP: A Lightweight Cryptographic Protocol for Human Delegation Provenance in Agentic AI Systems
  5. 2026Delegation Without Trust: An Empirical Gap Analysis of Identity, Authorization, and Runtime Governance in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  6. 2026AIP: Agent Identity Protocol for Verifiable Delegation Across MCP and A2A
  7. 2026SUDP: Secret-Use Delegation Protocol for Agentic Systems
  8. 2026NostrAgent: A Decentralized Identity and Delegation Architecture for Sovereign Agentic Systems