Verifier-Bound Communication for LLM Agents: Certified Bounds on Covert Signaling
Organizations: University of Maryland
Abstract
Colluding language-model agents can hide coordination in messages that remain policy-compliant at the surface level. We present CLBC, a protocol where generation and admission are separated: a message is admitted to transcript state only if a small verifier accepts a proof-bound envelope under a pinned predicate . The predicate binds policy hash, public randomness schedule, transcript chaining, latent schema constraints, canonical metadata/tool fields, and deterministic rejection codes. We show how this protocol yields an upper bound on transcript leakage in terms of latent leakage plus explicit residual channels, derive adaptive composition guarantees, and state a semantic lower bound when policy-valid alternatives remain choosable. We report extensive empirically grounded evidence: aggregate evaluation satisfies all prespecified thresholds; strict lane decoder advantage is bounded at 0.0000 with MI proxy 0.0636; adaptive-colluder stress tests remain below attacker thresholds; and baseline separation shows large gaps between reject-by-default semantics and audit-only controls. We further quantify operational tradeoffs. Strict full-proof mode has median turn latency 27.53s (p95 28.08s), while sampled proving reduces non-proved-turn latency to 0.327ms. The central finding is that bottlenecks alone are insufficient: security claims depend on verifiable admission semantics that are online, deterministic, and fail-closed.
Figures & tables
| Aggregate metric | Observed value |
|---|---|
| Strict max decoder advantage | 0.0000 |
| Strict max MI proxy (bits) | 0.0636 |
| Strict minimum utility | 0.8860 |
| Empirical minimum utility | 0.4338 |
| Empirical min exact success | 0.7847 |
| Empirical min unique response | 0.6250 |
| Attacker metric | Observed |
|---|---|
| Max decoder advantage | 0.0500 |
| Worst-case leakage proxy bits | 2.5850 |
| Min utility proxy | 0.8669 |
| Min parameter delta norm | 1.1127 |
| Min train steps | 60 |
| Min strategy count | 15 |
| Family | Decoder adv. | Exact success | Utility mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-agent decision | 0.0357 | 0.9821 | 0.9200 |
| Negotiation | 0.3452 | 0.8423 | 0.9184 |
| Planning | 0.3452 | 0.6696 | 0.7209 |
| Summarization | 0.0238 | 0.9196 | 0.8975 |
| TEPS | 0.2560 | 0.8423 | 0.8535 |
| Tool use | 0.1310 | 0.6012 | 0.6970 |
| Baseline class | Utility | Dec. adv. | Exact success |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schema-only | 0.900 | 0.000 | 0.833 |
| Overseer | 0.806 | 0.000 | 0.688 |
| Sanitize | 0.800 | 0.181 | 0.748 |
| Paraphrase | 0.704 | 0.241 | 0.597 |
| Raw messaging | 0.705 | 0.315 | 0.625 |
| Audit-only | 0.705 | 0.315 | 0.625 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
LLM Agent Security
Large language model agent security studies attacks and safeguards for systems that plan, use tools, retain memory, and act across applications.
See all 327 papers