mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Mission-Level Runtime Assurance for LLM-Assisted ISR Swarms over a Verification-Aware Fabric

arXiv 2607.23532 ↗First posted 26 Jul 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.LOcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Swarms of LLM-assisted autonomous robots are increasingly proposed for cooperative intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) in contested environments. A growing class of their assurance failures arises not within any single platform but across the swarm: individually-compliant actions compose into a mission-level violation: a prohibited objective split across platforms to evade per-platform limits, or a collective budget quietly exceeded. Per-platform guardrails miss these by construction, and contested communications let the violation hide behind lost or delayed evidence. We present a three-tier (platform/squad/mission) compositional runtime-verification framework that decomposes a mission policy into per-agent and cross-agent aspects, aggregates per-platform verdicts over a verification-aware messaging fabric, and fuses them with an evidence-aware, two-axis (security x completeness) algebra whose provenance names the platforms that jointly triggered a violation. Because the fabric makes evidence loss and silence observable, unsupported negative verdicts are downgraded to an explicit unknown rather than reported as mission-wide all-clears. On a simulated ISR mission, an indirect prompt injection that causes real LLM planners to split a prohibited collection task across four platforms is invisible to every per-platform monitor yet detected compositionally with full provenance; under an injected fault campaign a best-effort central monitor emits silent false all-clears while the verification-aware fabric emits none.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jul 2026.

Builds on

10 of 37 references.

References · 10

  1. 2022Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordancescited by 2,348
  2. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  3. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
  4. 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 364
  5. 2024Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systemscited by 133
  6. 2018SOTER: A Runtime Assurance Framework for Programming Safe Robotics Systemscited by 25
  7. 2022On Neural Network Equivalence Checking using SMT Solverscited by 10
  8. 2019Monitoring Mobile and Spatially Distributed Cyber-Physical Systemscited by 8
  9. 2018TeSSLa: Temporal Stream-based Specification Languagecited by 3
  10. 2024Counter-example guided Imitation Learning of Feedback Controllers from Temporal Logic Specificationscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Argus: A General-Purpose Agentic Reasoning Runtime for Long-Horizon Tasks
  2. 2026Multi-Aspect Runtime Verification for Simulation-Based V&V of LLM-Enabled Autonomous Agents
  3. 2025Verifiability-First Agents: Provable Observability and Lightweight Audit Agents for Controlling Autonomous LLM Systems
  4. 2026Position: A Three-Layer Probabilistic Assume-Guarantee Architecture Is Structurally Required for Safe LLM Agent Deployment
  5. 2026A Trace-Based Assurance Framework for Agentic AI Orchestration: Contracts, Testing, and Governance
  6. 2026ASEval: Automated Trajectory-Level Security Testing for Autonomous Agents
  7. 2026The Same Zero: Why Identical ASR Can Imply Different Guarantees in LLM-Agent Security
  8. 2026Melding LLM and temporal logic for reliable human-swarm collaboration in complex scenarios ↗