arXiv (All)
open access
The Same Zero: Why Identical ASR Can Imply Different Guarantees in LLM-Agent Security
LLM-agent security has produced a dense landscape of defenses - prompt hardening, content filters, permission gates, sandboxes - yet no framework tells a deployer what a defense actually guarantees, or where that guarantee comes from. We apply Verification Autonomy Levels (VAL) - L0: LLM self-declar
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- From Natural Language Policies to Executable Obligations: A Verification Harness for Dependable In-Car LLM Agents#482195
- AgentSecBench: Measuring Prompt Injection, Privacy Leakage, and Tool-Use Integrity in LLM Agents#229449
- Trust-Gated Capability Control: Breaking the Trust-Vulnerability Paradox in Multi-Agent LLM Systems#1216082
- Trust No Tool: Evaluating and Defending LLM Agents under Untrusted Tool Feedback#200400
- AgentCIScope: Grounded Contextual Integrity Evaluation for LLM Agents#1344981
Record · ID 1200155
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive