# Deny Without Disabling: Authorization-Paired Evaluation and Control for Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00371 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00371/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 42 of its 60 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 42)

- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09024/) (2024)
- [Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01833/) (2024)
- [Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14470/) (2024)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Jailbreak in pieces: Compositional Adversarial Attacks on Multi-Modal Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.14539/) (2023)
- [PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Action](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.00138/) (2024)
- [Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threats](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05179/) (2025)
- [ST-WebAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Safety and Trustworthiness in Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06703/) (2024)
- [X-Teaming: Multi-Turn Jailbreaks and Defenses with Adaptive Multi-Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13203/) (2025)
- [OS-Harm: A Benchmark for Measuring Safety of Computer Use Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14866/) (2025)
- [SafeArena: Evaluating the Safety of Autonomous Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04957/) (2025)
- [Foot-In-The-Door: A Multi-turn Jailbreak for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19820/) (2025)
- [MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.13220/) (2025)
- [ATBench: A Diverse and Realistic Agent Trajectory Benchmark for Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02022/) (2026)
- [Stop Comparing LLM Agents Without Disclosing the Harness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.23950/) (2026)
- [ClawsBench: Evaluating Capability and Safety of LLM Productivity Agents in Simulated Workspaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.05172/) (2026)
- [ClawBench: Can AI Agents Complete Everyday Online Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08523/) (2026)
- [TAMAS: Benchmarking Adversarial Risks in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.05269/) (2025)
- [AgentLeak: A Benchmark for Internal-Channel Privacy Leakage in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11510/) (2026)
- [ClawKeeper: Comprehensive Safety Protection for OpenClaw Agents Through Skills, Plugins, and Watchers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.24414/) (2026)
- [Your Agent, Their Asset: A Real-World Safety Analysis of OpenClaw](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.04759/) (2026)
- [Jigsaw Puzzles: Splitting Harmful Questions to Jailbreak Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11459/) (2024)
- [RAS-Eval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Security Evaluation of LLM Agents in Real-World Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15253/) (2025)
- [ClawSafety: "Safe" LLMs, Unsafe Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01438/) (2026)
- [CI-Work: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity in Enterprise LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21308/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent systems derive their capabilities from sharing evidence, delegating tasks, and combining information across agents. The same process creates a safety problem: contributions that are admissible in isolation can jointly enable a prohibited use. Blocking every sensitive action avoids disclosure but defeats the purpose of collaboration. We introduce authorization-paired evaluation, which makes blocking prohibited uses and completing required authorized uses a joint success criterion, and FlowReview, a framework connecting object resolution, permission ranking, and deterministic enforcement. In controlled composition experiments, reviewing combined artifacts reduces the denied-commit rate from 86.0% to zero with no loss of authorized supply. Our findings show that preserving information and lineage alone does not ensure correct permission attribution. Object identity and permission must remain connected to execution through components whose outputs can be verified. Together, these findings establish a system-level requirement for multi-agent safety: govern composed information flows while preserving the authorized capabilities that make collaboration useful.