Multi-Aspect Runtime Verification for Simulation-Based V&V of LLM-Enabled Autonomous Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance also fits: General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-based agents are entering decision-support roles in defence staff work, where the obligations they must respect are already written down and binding, and where retraining is not available as a control because models arrive as procured components. What can be placed under engineering control is the interface between the agent and the systems it acts on. Those obligations are at once spatial, temporal and text-semantic, and a violation typically lives in the composition of a multi-step interaction, which is why per-event guardrails miss sequential tool-attack chains. We present a multi-aspect runtime-verification framework that decomposes a natural-language policy clause into a typed spatial/temporal/semantic triple over one canonical event stream, checks each aspect with its own monitoring specification, and fuses the verdicts through a four-valued algebra that carries provenance. The spatial aspect is interpreted over a weighted two-sorted location graph in which mission geometry and information-release topology are one object; we show that these spatial obligations are not in general subsumed by a first-order temporal specification. The past-time aspect runs on the unmodified MonPoly engine, which agrees with our reference monitor at every time point. Across two mission domains, casualty evacuation and contested sustainment, and one civil domain, composition under the precautionary blocking policy drives attack success to zero with no observed false positives and microsecond-scale per-event cost, while every single aspect and every pair leaves a substantial share of attacks succeeding. In a closed-loop experiment a policy-naive planner reaches a violating state in most unshielded missions and in none when shielded, and four refused episodes in five still recover to a compliant outcome.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025An Approach to Checking Correctness for Agentic Systems
- 2026ActGov: Governing LLM Agent Actions via Policy-Constrained Validation
- 2026Position: A Three-Layer Probabilistic Assume-Guarantee Architecture Is Structurally Required for Safe LLM Agent Deployment
- 2026Verification as an Architectural Layer for LLM Agents: A V-Model Design, and a Pilot Study of Its Deterministic Core
- 2026Symbolic Temporal Supervision of LLM Agents Using Contracts
- 2026Toward Scalable Verifiable Reward: Proxy State-Based Evaluation for Multi-turn Tool-Calling LLM Agents
- 2026From Natural Language Policies to Executable Obligations: A Verification Harness for Dependable In-Car LLM Agents
- 2025Enforcing Temporal Constraints for LLM Agents