mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Authorization Revocation for Long-Running AI Agents: Root-Scoped Quiescence under Delegation and Asynchronous Execution

arXiv 2609.21284 ↗First posted 18 Sep 2026cs.PL cs.AI cs.CRcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Long-running AI agents outlive initiating processes through credentials, delegated tasks, queues, callbacks, reservations, and provider-side operations. Cancellation, process exit, and credential revocation neither close every pre-cut carrier nor distinguish independently authorized shared work. We define root-scoped authorization quiescence: for each manifested sink, a certificate accounts for every cut-relevant acceptance under the retired root-epoch atom that precedes its local fence and excludes protected acceptance under that atom after the fence, while permitting exact rebind to a current, independently sufficient support. The root-scoped quiescence protocol linearizes a root cut, fences old-root expansion and protected sinks, represents alternative and conjunctive authority as antichains of minimal sufficient root sets, and composes provider-frontier certificates into a cutset over registered old-root paths. Exact channel-token accounting reconciles transfers; missing or conflicting evidence remains indeterminate. Under stated assumptions, we prove post-cut issuer non-expansion, support-sound projection, compositional soundness under exact channel conservation, independent-support preservation, merge-order independence, and crash/replay stability. A provider-free late-effect test suite matches 17/17 registered outcomes. Two cancellation-only and one cut-only execution accept the same class of already scheduled late effect; two cut-plus-fence executions, one restart, and one stale-process execution reject it. A separately implemented checker verifies 17/17 traces and rejects 44/44 consistently rehashed semantic regressions. The certificate establishes root-relative authorization quiescence within its bound manifest and configuration, not global idleness, rollback, or business completion.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2026.

Builds on

15 of 46 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 548
  2. 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agentscited by 18
  3. 2026AIRGuard: Guarding Agent Actions with Runtime Authority Controlcited by 13
  4. 2026Lingering Authority: Revocable Resource-and-Effect Capabilities for Coding Agentscited by 8
  5. 2026Bounded Agents: Delegation Security for Multi-Agent AI Systemscited by 7
  6. 2026Are You Still the Agent I Authorized? Earned Authority under a Fixed Ceiling for Evolving Agentscited by 5
  7. 2026AID-Guard: Stateful Authorization for Delegated Agent Effectscited by 5
  8. 2026The Authorization-Execution Gap Is a Major Safety and Security Problem in Open-World Agentscited by 4
  9. 2026Heartbeat-Bound Hierarchical Credentials: Cryptographic Revocation for AI Agent Swarmscited by 3
  10. 2026Stop Means Stop: Measuring and Repairing the Enforcement Gap in Agent-Framework Control Primitivescited by 3
  11. 2026CONTINUITY: Security-Context Contracts for Composable LLM Agent Controlscited by 3
  12. 2026VERA: Authority-Preserving Edge Revocation for Federated AI-Agent Workflowscited by 2
3 more
  1. 2026When Does Authorization End? Effect Closure at Provider Boundariescited by 2
  2. 2026ResidualAuth: What Authorization State Must Language Agents Preserve under Revocable Delegation?cited by 2
  3. 2026From Intent to Execution Grant: An Execution-Boundary Conformance Profile for High-Risk AI Actionscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.