Papers
arxiv:2611.09113

Authorization Drift in LLM Agents: Evaluating Boundary Compliance in Multi-Step Tool Use

Published on Nov 6
· Submitted by
Chuxue Cao
on Nov 9
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Large language model agents can exceed authorized limits while pursuing user goals, and a 648-sample benchmark across seven domains shows that this drift rises with capability yet is avoidable and carries cross-jurisdictional privacy and information-security risks.

LLM agents can exceed their authorization boundaries while pursuing user goals without an adversary. We formalize this phenomenon as authorization drift across data, tool, scope, and time, and introduce the Authorization Drift Benchmark (ADB): 648 samples across seven domains, each pairing a sufficient compliant path with an attractive unauthorized shortcut. To ensure executable tasks, tempting shortcuts, and feasible compliant paths, Staged Execution-Reflective Synthesis (SERS) grounds benchmark validation in real agent rollouts rather than LLM self-critique. Across 13 LLMs and three frameworks (25,207 trajectories), greater capability accompanies greater drift, with frontier-capable models exhibiting drift rates of 0.43 to 0.61. Yet 86.18% of tasks admit an observed clean-success trajectory, showing that drift is avoidable. Drift is persistent and dominated by early data over-collection; apparent improvements under agentic scaffolds coincide with collapsing clean-completion performance. To understand potential harms to individuals and society, we map drift points to legal provisions across four jurisdictions, connecting overreach to privacy and information-security concerns. Data minimisation is the most frequently implicated provision, and 93.5% of legally grounded drifting runs map to multiple jurisdictions, making the potential consequences of authorization drift more interpretable.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

Clipboard_Screenshot_1794216515

Love that there is no adversary here: the model just takes the attractive shortcut on its own. The finding that more capable models drift more is the part that stuck with me. Did you also see agents fail the tasks with no shortcut on offer, or only when a tempting one was there?

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2611.09113
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.09113 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.09113 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.09113 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.