mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Authorization Closure Graph: Minimal Repair for LLM Agents with Evolving User Instructions

arXiv 2609.32428 ↗First posted 26 Sep 2026cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents increasingly perform state-changing actions that require user authorization. Yet existing approaches do not provide a principled mechanism for selectively updating prior authorization when only part of an instruction changes. To this end, we propose an Authorization-Closure-Graph (ACG)-based framework that represents authorization and its dependencies as an evolving, versioned state. ACG selectively invalidates authority affected by a revision while preserving unaffected portions of the authorization state, and computes a minimal repair that identifies only the missing evidence or authority required for execution. This enables agents to adapt to revised instructions while avoiding stale authority and unnecessary authorization requests. We evaluate ACG across three advanced LLMs in two natural tasks, and ACG consistently improves action safety rate and task success rate. Code is available at https://github.com/weiliang822/ACG.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 18 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2026.

Builds on

18 of 28 references.

Closest ancestors · 10

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Beyond Single-Use Tokens: Durable Authorization State for Replay-Resistant LLM Agent Actions3 Aug
  2. 2026FAVA: Formal Authorization for Verified Agents with Evidence-Backed Permission Graphs29 Jul
  3. 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agents11 Jul
  4. 2026PolicyGuard: A Dialogue-Grounded Sub-Agent Verifier for Policy Adherence in LLM Agents28 Jun
  5. 2026VIGIL: Runtime Enforcement of Behavioral Specifications in AI Agent Skills25 Jun
  6. 2026Aligning Provenance with Authorization: A Dual-Graph Defense for LLM Agents26 May
  7. 2026Formal Policy Enforcement for Real-World Agentic Systems18 Feb
  8. 2025Towards Enforcing Company Policy Adherence in Agentic Workflows22 Jul
  9. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  10. 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents24 Mar

Other references · 8

  1. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
  2. 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 627
  3. 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 295
  4. 2025Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Controlcited by 121
  5. 2026ToolGate: Contract-Grounded and Verified Tool Execution for LLMscited by 15
  6. 2026What You Approve Is What Executes: Consent Integrity for Black-Box LLM Agentscited by 9
  7. 2026Near-Miss: Latent Policy Failure Detection in Agentic Workflowscited by 4
  8. 2026PolicyGuide: From Guarding One Action to Guiding the Whole Workflow for Policy-Compliant LLM Agentscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026From Approval to Execution: Reconstruction-Aware Repair Analysis for LLM-Agent Software
  2. 2026ActGov: Governing LLM Agent Actions via Policy-Constrained Validation
  3. 2026ARGUS: Defending LLM Agents Against Context-Aware Prompt Injection
  4. 2026Boundary-State Control for Tool-Using Language-Model Agents: Commit-Time Consistency under State Drift
  5. 2026Toward Safe LLM Agents: A Survey of Specification, Verification, and Enforcement
  6. 2026AuthGateBench: Benchmarking LLMs as Authorization Gate
  7. 2026When Tool Outputs Become Commands: Separating Action Induction from Runtime Authorization in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents
  8. 2026Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity