mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Granularity Mismatch in Agent Security: Argument-Level Provenance Solves Enforcement and Isolates the LLM Reasoning Bottleneck

arXiv 2605.11039 ↗First posted 11 May 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 8

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-using LLM agents must act on untrusted webpages, emails, files, and API outputs while issuing privileged tool calls. Existing defenses often mediate trust at the granularity of an entire tool invocation, forcing a brittle choice in mixed-trust workflows: allow external content to influence a call and risk hijacked destinations or commands, or quarantine the call and block benign retrieval-then-act behavior. The key observation behind this paper is that indirect prompt injection becomes dangerous not when untrusted content appears in context, but when it determines an authority-bearing argument. We present textscPACT (Provenance-Aware Capability Contracts), a runtime monitor that assigns semantic roles to tool arguments, tracks value provenance across replanning steps, and checks whether each argument's origin satisfies its role-specific trust contract. Under oracle provenance, textscPACT achieves 100% utility and 100% security on mixed-trust diagnostic suites, while flat invocation-level monitors incur false positives or false negatives. In full AgentDojo deployments across five models, textscPACT reaches 100% security on the three strongest models while recovering 38.1--46.4% utility, 8--16 percentage points above CaMeL at the same security level. Ablations show that both semantic roles and cross-step provenance are necessary. textscPACT reframes agent security as authority binding, and isolates the remaining deployment bottleneck to provenance inference and contract synthesis.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 28 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.

Builds on

28 of 35 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning13 Jun

Other references · 27

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
  3. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
  4. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 476
  5. 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 441
  6. 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agentscited by 280
  7. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Designcited by 256
  8. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agentscited by 145
  9. 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attackscited by 140
  10. 2024Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systemscited by 126
  11. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Controlcited by 121
  12. 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 108
15 more
  1. 2025SEAgent: Self-Evolving Computer Use Agent with Autonomous Learning from Experiencecited by 68
  2. 2025MELON: Provable Defense Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks in AI Agentscited by 67
  3. 2024Instructional Segment Embedding: Improving LLM Safety with Instruction Hierarchycited by 62
  4. 2025DRIFT: Dynamic Rule-Based Defense with Injection Isolation for Securing LLM Agentscited by 59
  5. 2025Scaling Test-time Compute for LLM Agentscited by 59
  6. 2026Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Frameworkcited by 50
  7. 2025AgentArmor: Enforcing Program Analysis on Agent Runtime Trace to Defend Against Prompt Injectioncited by 39
  8. 2026The Landscape of Prompt Injection Threats in LLM Agents: From Taxonomy to Analysiscited by 25
  9. 2026Learning to Inject: Automated Prompt Injection via Reinforcement Learningcited by 14
  10. 2026IH-Challenge: A Training Dataset to Improve Instruction Hierarchy on Frontier LLMscited by 14
  11. 2026Agent-Sentry: Bounding LLM Agents via Execution Provenancecited by 13
  12. 2026AdapTools: Adaptive Tool-based Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic LLMscited by 12
  13. 2026SafeAgent: A Runtime Protection Architecture for Agentic Systemscited by 7
  14. 2026The Cognitive Firewall:Securing Browser Based AI Agents Against Indirect Prompt Injection Via Hybrid Edge Cloud Defensecited by 2
  15. 2026CapSeal: Capability-Sealed Secret Mediation for Secure Agent Executioncited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents
  2. 2026Causality Laundering: Denial-Feedback Leakage in Tool-Calling LLM Agents
  3. 2026Context-Fractured Decomposition Attacks on Tool-Using LLM Agents: Exploiting Artifact Provenance Gaps
  4. 2026Auditing Provenance Sensitivity in LLM Agent Action Selection
  5. 2026WebMCP-Phalanx: Enforcing and Characterizing Trust Boundaries for Browser-Integrated LLM Agents
  6. 2026Aligning Provenance with Authorization: A Dual-Graph Defense for LLM Agents
  7. 2026Safeguarding LLM Agents from Misalignment through Provenance Analysis
  8. 2026CONTINUITY: Security-Context Contracts for Composable LLM Agent Controls