ILION: Deterministic Pre-Execution Safety Gates for Agentic AI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13247v1
• Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 12:25:42 GMT
• Title: ILION: Deterministic Pre-Execution Safety Gates for Agentic AI Systems
• Abstract summary: We present ILION, a deterministic execution gate for agentic AI systems.<n>ILION classifies proposed agent actions as BLOCK or ALLOW without statistical training or API dependencies.<n>ILION outperforms the best commercial baseline by 4.3 F1 points while operating 2,000 times faster with a false positive rate four times lower.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The proliferation of autonomous AI agents capable of executing real-world actions - filesystem operations, API calls, database modifications, financial transactions - introduces a class of safety risk not addressed by existing content-moderation infrastructure. Current text-safety systems evaluate linguistic content for harm categories such as violence, hate speech, and sexual content; they are architecturally unsuitable for evaluating whether a proposed action falls within an agent's authorized operational scope. We present ILION (Intelligent Logic Identity Operations Network), a deterministic execution gate for agentic AI systems. ILION employs a five-component cascade architecture - Transient Identity Imprint (TII), Semantic Vector Reference Frame (SVRF), Identity Drift Control (IDC), Identity Resonance Score (IRS) and Consensus Veto Layer (CVL) - to classify proposed agent actions as BLOCK or ALLOW without statistical training or API dependencies. The system requires zero labeled data, operates in sub-millisecond latency, and produces fully interpretable verdicts. We evaluate ILION on ILION-Bench v2, a purpose-built benchmark of 380 test scenarios across eight attack categories with 39% hard-difficulty adversarial cases and a held-out development split. ILION achieves F1 = 0.8515, precision = 91.0%, and a false positive rate of 7.9% at a mean latency of 143 microseconds. Comparative evaluation against three baselines - Lakera Guard (F1 = 0.8087), OpenAI Moderation API (F1 = 0.1188), and Llama Guard 3 (F1 = 0.0105) - demonstrates that existing text-safety infrastructure systematically fails on agent execution safety tasks due to a fundamental task mismatch. ILION outperforms the best commercial baseline by 4.3 F1 points while operating 2,000 times faster with a false positive rate four times lower.

Related papers

• EvoSafeHarness: Evolving Model- and Domain-Specific Harnesses for Securing Agents [74.54929751174289]
  EvoSafeHarness is a safety-specific optimization framework that synthesizes a deployable harness for a frozen model in a target domain.<n>It reduces average attack success rate from 45.6% to 10.0% at a 3.3-point utility cost.<n>It also achieves the best score on Agent-SafetyBench for every victim.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-05T05:56:41Z)
• SIR: Self-improving Red-teaming for Compute Use Agents [71.71987044117371]
  Computer use agents (CUAs) are vision-language models that perceive a screen and act on a real operating system through mouse, keyboard, and terminal.<n>Because they can be exposed to untrusted content while operating, they are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI)<n>We present SIR, a black box IPI attack that composes stealthy injections from a small library of reusable principles stated in plain language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T03:39:43Z)
• SingGuard-NSFA: Extensible Guardrails for Agentic AI via Generative Reasoning and Real-Time Classification [0.0]
  nsfaguard is a guardrail framework for securing agentic AI systems against operational threats.<n>We first introduce the NSFA taxonomy, which organizes 185 risk variants into a CIA-triad-grounded hierarchy.<n>We develop a dual-mode approach combining SFT-based generative reasoning for interpretable offline auditing with discriminative classification heads on the frozen backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T07:28:45Z)
• Boiling the Frog: A Multi-Turn Benchmark for Agentic Safety [2.661610409070365]
  We introduce Boiling the Frog, a benchmark that evaluates whether tool-using AI models are susceptible to incremental attacks.<n> Scenarios are organized through a three-level operational risk taxonomy.<n>Across a nine-model panel, aggregate strict attack success rate (ASR) is 44.4%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T15:50:18Z)
• Parallax: Why AI Agents That Think Must Never Act [0.0]
  This paper introduces Parallax, a paradigm for safe autonomous AI execution grounded in four principles.<n>We present OpenParallax, an open-source reference implementation in Go, and evaluate it usingAssume-Compromise Evaluation.<n>Across 280 adversarial test cases in nine attack categories, Parallax blocks 98.9% of attacks with zero false positives under its default configuration, and 100% of attacks under its maximum-security configuration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T17:20:48Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• LanG -- A Governance-Aware Agentic AI Platform for Unified Security Operations [2.1142550386295853]
  This paper presents the LLM-assisted network Governance (LanG), an open-source, governance-aware agentic AI platform for unified security operations.<n>The platform supports multi-tenant isolation, role-based access, and fully local deployment.<n>Finetuned anomaly and threat detectors achieve weighted F1 scores of 99.0% and 91.0%, respectively, in intrusion-detection benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T05:22:25Z)
• Measuring the Permission Gate: A Stress-Test Evaluation of Claude Code's Auto Mode [9.116800340266066]
  Claude Code's auto mode is the first deployed permission system for AI coding agents.<n>Anthropic reports a 0.4% false positive rate and 17% false negative rate on production traffic.<n>We evaluate 253 state-changing actions at the individual action level against oracle ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-04T17:56:30Z)
• ATBench: A Diverse and Realistic Agent Trajectory Benchmark for Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis [96.92417622318267]
  ATBench is a trajectory-level benchmark for structured, diverse, and realistic evaluation of agent safety.<n>It organizes agentic risk along three dimensions: risk source, failure mode, and real-world harm.<n>It contains 1,000 trajectories (503 safe and 497 unsafe), averaging 9.01 turns and 3.95k tokens, with 1,954 invoked tools drawn from pools spanning 2,084 available tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T13:26:20Z)
• LLM Readiness Harness: Evaluation, Observability, and CI Gates for LLM/RAG Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present a readiness harness for LLM and RAG applications that turns evaluation into a deployment decision workflow.<n>The system combines automated benchmarks, OpenTelemetry observability, and CI quality gates under a minimal API contract.<n>We evaluate the harness on ticket-routing and BEIR tasks with full Azure matrix coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T18:03:32Z)
• Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review [6.417595678110472]
  We study whether confirmation bias affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks.<n>Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt.<n>Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T10:40:27Z)
• $α^3$-SecBench: A Large-Scale Evaluation Suite of Security, Resilience, and Trust for LLM-based UAV Agents over 6G Networks [3.099103925863002]
  We introduce $3$-SecBench, the first large-scale evaluation suite for assessing the security-aware autonomy of LLM-based UAV agents under realistic adversarial interference.<n>We evaluate 23 state-of-the-art LLMs from major industrial providers and leading AI labs using thousands of adversarially augmented UAV episodes sampled from a corpus of 113,475 missions spanning 175 threat types. Normalized overall scores range from 12.9% to 57.1%, highlighting a significant gap between anomaly detection and security-aware autonomous decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T18:25:07Z)
• ReasAlign: Reasoning Enhanced Safety Alignment against Prompt Injection Attack [52.17935054046577]
  We present ReasAlign, a model-level solution to improve safety alignment against indirect prompt injection attacks.<n>ReasAlign incorporates structured reasoning steps to analyze user queries, detect conflicting instructions, and preserve the continuity of the user's intended tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T08:23:38Z)
• Quantifying Return on Security Controls in LLM Systems [0.0]
  This paper introduces a decision-oriented framework to quantify residual risk.<n>It converts adversarial probe outcomes into financial risk estimates and return-on-control metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T04:58:09Z)
• SeBERTis: A Framework for Producing Classifiers of Security-Related Issue Reports [8.545800179148442]
  SEBERTIS is a framework to train Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) as classifiers independent of lexical cues.<n>Our framework achieves a 0.9880 F1-score in detecting security-related issues of a curated corpus of 10,000 GitHub issue reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T01:23:11Z)
• Penetration Testing of Agentic AI: A Comparative Security Analysis Across Models and Frameworks [0.0]
  Agentic AI introduces security vulnerabilities that traditional LLM safeguards fail to address.<n>We conduct the first systematic testing and comparative evaluation of agentic AI systems.<n>We identify six distinct defensive behavior patterns including a novel "hallucinated compliance" strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-16T19:22:50Z)
• AGENTSAFE: Benchmarking the Safety of Embodied Agents on Hazardous Instructions [64.85086226439954]
  We present SAFE, a benchmark for assessing the safety of embodied VLM agents on hazardous instructions.<n> SAFE comprises three components: SAFE-THOR, SAFE-VERSE, and SAFE-DIAGNOSE.<n>We uncover systematic failures in translating hazard recognition into safe planning and execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T16:37:35Z)
• AegisLLM: Scaling Agentic Systems for Self-Reflective Defense in LLM Security [74.22452069013289]
  AegisLLM is a cooperative multi-agent defense against adversarial attacks and information leakage.<n>We show that scaling agentic reasoning system at test-time substantially enhances robustness without compromising model utility.<n> Comprehensive evaluations across key threat scenarios, including unlearning and jailbreaking, demonstrate the effectiveness of AegisLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T17:36:05Z)
• SafeAgentBench: A Benchmark for Safe Task Planning of Embodied LLM Agents [58.65256663334316]
  We present SafeAgentBench -- the first benchmark for safety-aware task planning of embodied LLM agents in interactive simulation environments.<n>SafeAgentBench includes: (1) an executable, diverse, and high-quality dataset of 750 tasks, rigorously curated to cover 10 potential hazards and 3 task types; (2) SafeAgentEnv, a universal embodied environment with a low-level controller, supporting multi-agent execution with 17 high-level actions for 9 state-of-the-art baselines; and (3) reliable evaluation methods from both execution and semantic perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:55:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.