CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 26, 2026

Reframing LLM Agent Security as an Agent-Human Interaction Problem

arXiv Security Archived May 26, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.24309v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue that LLM agent security is fundamentally an agent-human interaction (AHI) problem, not a purely algorithmic one. To substantiate this position, we conduct a systematic analysis of 59 academic papers, 21 production agent systems, and 26 security plugins as of April 2026. Our analysis reveals a striking pattern: the three widely deployed human-centric security mechanisms (policy specification, runtime approval, and scope configuration) domin

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 23 May 2026] Reframing LLM Agent Security as an Agent-Human Interaction Problem Peiran Wang, Ying Li, Yuan Tian We argue that LLM agent security is fundamentally an agent-human interaction (AHI) problem, not a purely algorithmic one. To substantiate this position, we conduct a systematic analysis of 59 academic papers, 21 production agent systems, and 26 security plugins as of April 2026. Our analysis reveals a striking pattern: the three widely deployed human-centric security mechanisms (policy specification, runtime approval, and scope configuration) dominate industry practice, each adopted by at least 14 of 21 systems (14, 15, and 16, respectively), while the categories most heavily studied in academia (intent anchoring and trust labeling) see zero production deployment. Yet current human participation mechanisms are far from satisfactory: they suffer from a fundamental trade-off between cognitive burden and security guarantees, leaving users caught between approval fatigue and uncontrolled agent autonomy. We make three contributions. First, through a systematic comparison of LLM-based and human-based intent alignment, we argue that human participation in agent security decisions is indispensable given current capabilities. Second, we quantify a pronounced industry-academia mismatch: the security mechanisms that practitioners actually deploy receive scant research attention, while the approaches that researchers favor remain undeployed. Third, we propose a three-direction research agenda and call for AHI security to be recognized as a first-class research citizen, one that demands its own design principles, evaluation methods, and theoretical foundations. Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) Cite as: arXiv:2605.24309 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2605.24309v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.24309 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Peiran Wang [view email] [v1] Sat, 23 May 2026 00:36:48 UTC (992 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 26, 2026
    Archived
    May 26, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗