CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Access Control and TrustBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

VERA: Authority-Preserving Edge Revocation for Federated AI-Agent Workflows

Open access
Liu, Lifei, Yu, Haoran, Jiang, Xiaochong·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2608.30091arXiv 2608.30091
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Modern agent frameworks compose planners, tool agents, remote services, and shared specialists into runtime delegation graphs, but their revocation APIs still resemble token or subtree invalidation. When one delegation is withdrawn, the runtime must know which agents lose authority while independently authorized agents keep working. We study this authority consistency problem and introduce VERA (Verifiable Edge Revocation for Agents), a verifier-checkable revocation contract and API emitted by agent-runtime adapters as signed evidence. Under disjunctive authority, revoking edge e invalidates exactly T_intent(e,G) = reach(G) \ reach(G \ {e}), the agents whose every authorizing root path used e. Used as a contract, this target exposes two runtime failures: tree cascades over-revoke shared agents, while deployer-scoped cascades under-revoke cross-domain descendants. In a LangGraph framework-replt cells repeated 20 times yield 500compiled-framework traces and 2,000 valid signed delegation decisions; 13/25 cells contain runtime multi-parsharing and 8/25 contain cross-deployer shies 500/500 target proofs, preserves all320 alternate-parent shared-agent cases that tree cascade revokes, and rejects unauthorized signers and omission attacks. Baseline replay over 1,9that holder/node and tree-style targetscannot express this behavior. We further validate schema portability on A2A, AutoGen, and CrewAI artifacts: nine traces, including five executable Cregned delegation events that pass schema and signature checks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2608.30091

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [1][1] Q. Wu et al. , 'AutoGen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multiagent conversation,' arXiv:2308.08155; Oral, ICLR 2024 Workshop on LLM Agents, 2023. - · arXiv
  2. [6][6] T. South et al. , 'Authenticated delegation and authorized AI agents,' arXiv:2501.09674, 2025. - · arXiv
  3. [7][7] --, 'Identity management for agentic AI: The new frontier of authorization, authentication, and security for an AI agent world,' OpenID Foundation whitepaper; arXiv:2510.25819, 2025. - · arXiv
  4. [8][8] S. Prakash, 'AIP: Agent identity protocol for verifiable delegation across MCP and A2A,' arXiv:2603.24775, 2026. - · arXiv
  5. [11][11] J. Larisch, D. Choffnes, D. Levin, B. M. Maggs, A. Mislove, and C. Wilson, 'CRLite: A scalable system for pushing all TLS revocations to all browsers,' in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) , 2017, pp. 539-556. -
  6. [12][12] A. Birgisson, J. G. Politz, ´ U. Erlingsson, A. Taly, M. Vrable, and M. Lentczner, 'Macaroons: Cookies with contextual caveats for decentralized authorization in the cloud,' in Proceedings of NDSS , 2014. -
  7. [14][14] J. Wainer, A. Kumar, and P. Barthelmess, 'DW-RBAC: A formal security model of delegation and revocation in workflow systems,' Information Systems , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 365-384, 2007. -
  8. [18][18] A.-L. Barab´ asi and R. Albert, 'Emergence of scaling in random networks,' Science , vol. 286, no. 5439, pp. 509-512, 1999. -
  9. [19][19] M. Blaze, J. Feigenbaum, and J. Lacy, 'Decentralized trust management,' in Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , 1996, pp. 164-173. -
  10. [20][20] D. Clarke, C. Ellison, M. Fredette, A. Morcos, and R. L. Rivest, 'Certificate chain discovery in SPKI/SDSI,' Journal of Computer Security , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 285-322, 2001. -
  11. [21][21] J. Y. Halpern and R. van der Meyden, 'A logical reconstruction of SPKI,' arXiv:cs/0208028, 2002. - · arXiv
  12. [22][22] N. Li, J. C. Mitchell, and W. H. Winsborough, 'Design of a rolebased trust-management framework,' in Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , 2002, pp. 114-130. -
  13. [23][23] ˚ A. Hagstr¨ om, S. Jajodia, F. Parisi-Presicce, and D. Wijesekera, 'Revocations - a classification,' in Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW) , 2001, pp. 44-58. -
  14. [24][24] X. Jiang, S. Yang, W. Yang, Y. Liu, and C. Ji, 'Agentic AI as a cybersecurity attack surface: Threats, exploits, and defenses in runtime supply chains,' in Proceedings of the 2026 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) , 2026, pp. 2142-2149. -
  15. [25][25] Z. Anbiaee et al. , 'Security threat modeling for emerging AI-agent protocols: A comparative analysis of MCP, A2A, Agora, and ANP,' arXiv:2602.11327, 2026. - · arXiv
  16. [26][26] X. Li et al. , 'A vision for access control in LLM-based agent systems,' arXiv:2510.11108, 2025. - · arXiv
  17. [27][27] Z. Ji et al. , 'Taming various privilege escalation in LLM-based agent systems: A mandatory access control framework,' arXiv:2601.11893, 2026. - · arXiv
  18. [28][28] X. Jiang et al. , 'ChainCaps: Composition-safe tool-using agents via monotonic capability attenuation,' arXiv:2605.26542, 2026. - · arXiv
  19. [29][29] A. Ibrahim and Y. Li, 'Overlaying governance: A compositional authorization framework for delegation and scope in agentic AI,' arXiv:2606.03518, 2026. - · arXiv
  20. [30][30] T. Lengauer and R. E. Tarjan, 'A fast algorithm for finding dominators in a flowgraph,' ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 121-141, 1979.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, L., Yu, H., & Jiang, X.
ORCID
Jiang, Xiaochong
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2608.30091
arXiv
2608.30091
OpenAlex
W7204942243
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
AI agents, LangGraph, AutoGen, CrewAI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review