Bounded Agents: Delegation Security for Multi-Agent AI Systems
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-based agents can act on behalf of a user to access cloud services, call tools, or invoke agents. At session start, the agent's permissions are set but remain static, and each request is evaluated independently, without considering prior actions. Within its permissions, an agent may act contrary to the delegated task, combine individually permitted actions into a prohibited outcome, or delegate authority to a sub-agent without limiting it. A prompt injection poses a risk only if the agent has authority to perform such actions; this is therefore a problem of authorization architecture, not just the model. The Agentic Principal Chain (APC) tracks delegated authority from one principal to the next. APC evaluates each request against the accumulated session state using six authorization checks. APC carries forward and restricts delegated scope and budgets. Using composition closure, APC checks requests against prior actions to prevent prohibited combinations and enforces the decision outside the model. We prove Blast Radius Monotonicity and Composition Soundness for APC implementations; Composition Soundness is limited to prohibited combinations under a complete restriction set and serialized admission. We evaluated 3,154 instances including InjecAgent, AgentDojo, and ASB. Our compromised-model evaluation tests APC independently of model behavior by inserting the ground-truth attack call after the first legitimate tool call. AgentDojo exfiltration fell from 75-100% to 0% across all four domains; APC blocked all 544 InjecAgent data-stealing cases. Intent binding reduced destruction from 38.6% to 4.0% and manipulation from 90.5% to 12.1%. Authorization latency was 0.24 ms at the 99th percentile on an idle host; across 949 AgentDojo task-injection pairs, utility was 8.6 and 13.9 percentage points lower in the two settings. Implementation, evaluation tools, and data are publicly available.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2026.
Builds on
9 of 32 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2026How Vulnerable Are AI Agents to Indirect Prompt Injections? Insights from a Large-Scale Public Competition16 Mar
- 2026Authenticated Workflows: A Systems Approach to Protecting Agentic AI11 Feb
- 2026Taming Various Privilege Escalation in LLM-Based Agent Systems: A Mandatory Access Control Framework17 Jan
- 2025It's a TRAP! Task-Redirecting Agent Persuasion Benchmark for Web Agents29 Dec
- 2025With Great Capabilities Come Great Responsibilities: Introducing the Agentic Risk & Capability Framework for Governing Agentic AI Systems22 Dec
- 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
- 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilities2 Jun
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 1
- 2025Authenticated Delegation and Authorized AI Agentscited by 65
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026AID-Guard: Stateful Authorization for Delegated Agent Effectscited by 5
- 2026ResidualAuth: What Authorization State Must Language Agents Preserve under Revocable Delegation?cited by 2
- 2026Spawn Freely, Act Sparingly: Progressive Risk Vesting for Recursive LLM-Agent Treescited by 1
- 2026From Review to Authorization: Key-Isolated Threshold Signing for LLM Agentscited by 1
- 2026Authorization Revocation for Long-Running AI Agents: Root-Scoped Quiescence under Delegation and Asynchronous Executioncited by 1
- 2026Reliability Engineering for AI Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directionscited by 0
- 2026Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollbackcited by 0
- 2026Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollback29 Sep 2026
- 2026Reliability Engineering for AI Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directions28 Sep 2026
- 2026Authorization Revocation for Long-Running AI Agents: Root-Scoped Quiescence under Delegation and Asynchronous Execution18 Sep 2026
- 2026ResidualAuth: What Authorization State Must Language Agents Preserve under Revocable Delegation?8 Sep 2026
- 2026From Review to Authorization: Key-Isolated Threshold Signing for LLM Agents5 Sep 2026
- 2026Spawn Freely, Act Sparingly: Progressive Risk Vesting for Recursive LLM-Agent Trees1 Sep 2026
- 2026AID-Guard: Stateful Authorization for Delegated Agent Effects21 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Overlaying Governance: A Compositional Authorization Framework for Delegation and Scope in Agentic AI
- 2026Delegation Without Trust: An Empirical Gap Analysis of Identity, Authorization, and Runtime Governance in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
- 2026Authorization Propagation in Multi-Agent AI Systems: Identity Governance as Infrastructure
- 2026A Theory of Least Autonomy in AI
- 2026SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems
- 2026CAPMAS: Capability-Based Delegation of Privileges in Multi-Agent Systems
- 2025Agentic JWT: A Secure Delegation Protocol for Autonomous AI Agents
- 2026Extending the Formalism and Theoretical Foundations of Cryptography to AI