{"as_of":"2026-08-16T07:37:00Z","caps":{"database_statements":6,"inbound":100,"outbound":100},"context_digest":"sha256:ff2f3ab31cc36129354eff623bea2dd74240725b68098df393f4efaa19c84ee6","coverage":[{"denominator":15,"lane":"reference_resolution","note":"Typed states for the displayed outbound observations.","records_observed":15,"source":"paper_references, paper_reference_links","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.067168Z","state":"measured"},{"denominator":15,"lane":"standing_notices","note":"One-hop event checks from named stored sources.","records_observed":15,"source":"scholarly_work_events, retraction_status_cache","source_observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","state":"measured"},{"denominator":0,"lane":"inbound_itemization","note":"Pith citing papers itemized under the disclosed page cap.","records_observed":0,"source":"paper_references, paper_reference_links","source_observed_at":null,"state":"measured"},{"denominator":1,"lane":"external_citation_measurements","note":"A source-named dated measurement, never combined with another source.","records_observed":0,"source":"cited_works","source_observed_at":null,"state":"measured"}],"external_citation_measurements":[],"inbound":[],"links":{"evidence":"/evidence","html":"/paper/2608.01388/citation-record","integrity":"/paper/2608.01388/integrity","json":"/paper/2608.01388/citation-record.json","paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"outbound":[{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.029753Z","title":"Enforcing temporal constraints for LLM agents,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":1,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.029753Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:f96d485e074e11c1d65a3717bb2842b927b0575653e68bb1caaf3600093bf1ac","observation_id":"2f3467bf-020f-4c92-8723-29023df08acc","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.029753Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.408556Z","title":"AgentSpec: Customizable runtime enforcement for safe and reliable LLM agents,","venue":null,"work_id":"ab34b7dd-7314-4335-8700-f36c9d54a5cc","year":2026},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":2,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.032694Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:0ae7a777cd0331b5b6f434d972e87c54036968dbc3b5ae52c4fb54a6e0d07a37","observation_id":"60a2d289-6116-41df-8b8a-f75be8cbc5f0","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.411200Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2508.00500","last_updated":"2026-08-03T00:31:29Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-15T02:14:41.884120Z","submitted_at":"2025-08-01T10:24:47Z","title":"ProbGuard: Proactive Runtime Monitoring for LLM Agent Safety via Probabilistic Prediction","version":4},"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":"2508.00500","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.035360Z","title":"ProbGuard: Probabilistic runtime monitoring for LLM agent safety,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":3,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.035360Z"},"links":{"cited_paper":"/paper/2508.00500","citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:ebf0a24ed56ab966800c9696d0ac38b08ce4114b0d25c7d50069de42117ba3bd","observation_id":"e90b5941-7433-4ce3-a6dd-4b7b29c401fa","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.035360Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.038272Z","title":"AgentSentry: Mitigating indirect prompt injection in LLM agents via temporal causal diagnostics and context purification,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2026},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":4,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.038272Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:521e63d17a76c3bee310946b61ef7d6b086261b3de147c6152baba2d80e8a1f6","observation_id":"56b64ad6-963e-42fb-87ef-efe80953cea7","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.038272Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.399975Z","title":"LTL-based runtime verification framework for cyber-attack anomaly prediction in cyber-physical systems,","venue":null,"work_id":"62d7c724-027d-45f3-9d51-544767825087","year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":5,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.041243Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:26fe99e62789214209e8f40938e2cb118413b6c95a06acc6c2d6f5c1fcb637ed","observation_id":"00f0bf65-3c10-44c1-9912-e5b0ad7b43d7","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.403485Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.390904Z","title":"Efficient mining of temporal safety properties for intrusion detection in industrial control systems,","venue":null,"work_id":"4578d712-d5dd-4fa2-a5c4-e1bffe126849","year":2018},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":6,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.044369Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:57ae76059f430d3889674d999c29bc525dd95eb35601e6eb3c81163c66dd86f8","observation_id":"d7cbfad2-9890-4c62-83e9-6205ebb651d2","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.393912Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":{"arxiv_id":"1807.08203","last_updated":"2022-09-12T16:39:40Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-16T04:15:12.169771Z","submitted_at":"2018-07-21T20:23:03Z","title":"From LTL to rLTL Monitoring: Improved Monitorability through Robust Semantics","version":5},"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":"1807.08203","doi":null,"metadata_source":"pith","pith_arxiv_id":"1807.08203","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.173271Z","title":"From LTL to rLTL Monitoring: Improved Monitorability through Robust Semantics","venue":"cs.FL","work_id":"088286c7-2648-4464-a9f5-0e819367ffbd","year":2018},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":7,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.047146Z"},"links":{"cited_paper":"/paper/1807.08203","citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:4799dbfd67f8c18d6b42f889806b9b04a5f9f91c549afc22830f84478c3940ba","observation_id":"236648d6-3069-4d84-bb18-2f14d98437fc","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.178053Z","resolver_source":"local_arxiv","status":"verified_exact"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.382153Z","title":"AgentDojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for LLM agents,","venue":null,"work_id":"569ee4c8-59a9-477a-a678-c100170234eb","year":2024},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":8,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.049706Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:1d77942301917895c929090cb765a190a793f121136dc3421535b3633fe7d61f","observation_id":"05fe4ad7-0b36-4131-afb4-f5b120274ba8","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.384878Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.373454Z","title":"GPT-4.1: Technical report,","venue":null,"work_id":"f2345b30-3d48-4c17-8ab4-a41ec67040b7","year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":9,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.051988Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:7904acf61d4ffa4f7907abea299d1e7d815618fe62ef4fa08323a8541778563f","observation_id":"c932a027-df10-464c-9ff4-a58313cedf19","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.376056Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.365508Z","title":"Claude Sonnet 4 model card,","venue":null,"work_id":"1f5d51e7-a39c-47f5-a9a4-bff8716e6d71","year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":10,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.054208Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:4d7736e2c377dcbf18a732acb5d65b8ac58e0c6531fb9f26d5e598b7b0dae9f7","observation_id":"677ca03a-6bc8-44a3-a6a2-010707253983","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.368128Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.355958Z","title":"Gemini 2.5 Flash: Technical report,","venue":null,"work_id":"dedc2a51-1efa-4880-8276-e1374a275779","year":2025},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":11,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.057111Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:ee681f78b4a75ad17d833d9755ef0b9ef21b9b187331b7632eb45751717134c7","observation_id":"11dd8dc5-e240-4933-8ef7-6d1605d1ed0b","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.359721Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2407.21783","last_updated":"2024-11-23T23:27:33Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-13T17:20:44.002518Z","submitted_at":"2024-07-31T17:54:27Z","title":"The Llama 3 Herd of Models","version":3},"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":"2407.21783","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.059505Z","title":"The Llama 3 herd of models,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2024},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":12,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.059505Z"},"links":{"cited_paper":"/paper/2407.21783","citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:b1b144634b8fce309045674a47932305e988b6fc31983f23bd4815e0f3817e64","observation_id":"f9f8823f-9f4e-4960-b76c-ccacb2c49bcd","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.059505Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":"raw_reference","pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.345475Z","title":"Mining anomalies using traffic feature distributions,","venue":null,"work_id":"0a17a53b-372b-4d0c-bed7-cb8989c6ca3c","year":2005},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":13,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.062076Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:c0daef559e54cab98d38b68579858c79515da05c83621db466546d9d5488941b","observation_id":"a4987a52-6906-4be9-8878-ee05073e256e","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.348364Z","resolver_source":"raw_fallback","status":"verified_fuzzy"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"observation":"No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00.","reason":null,"source_receipts":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"state":"measured"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":null,"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":null,"snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.064611Z","title":"AgentVerify: Compositional formal verification of AI agent safety properties via LTL model checking,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2026},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":14,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.064611Z"},"links":{"citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:a778933a8abae36b50e3e3d060f8a55be70e2302acc8056042b3d285d6101049","observation_id":"a9cb4c2a-5655-4d82-8789-34af695d2a97","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.064611Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}},{"citation":{"cited_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2604.04561","last_updated":"2026-04-06T09:44:34Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:13.485353Z","submitted_at":"2026-04-06T09:44:34Z","title":"Mapping the Exploitation Surface: A 10,000-Trial Taxonomy of What Makes LLM Agents Exploit Vulnerabilities","version":1},"cited_work":{"arxiv_id":null,"doi":null,"metadata_source":null,"pith_arxiv_id":"2604.04561","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.067168Z","title":"Mapping the exploitation surface: A 10,000-trial taxonomy of what makes LLM agents exploit vulnerabilities,","venue":null,"work_id":null,"year":2026},"citing_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety","version":1},"reference_index":15,"source":"pdf_text","source_observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.067168Z"},"links":{"cited_paper":"/paper/2604.04561","citing_paper":"/paper/2608.01388"},"observation_digest":"sha256:09318a55c333f52011dad3ade7c8e83c7cd5d81cdecc9f1a85fa3fb8f2726989","observation_id":"0e49cda8-b4b6-480a-9a9b-c8aff9655bb2","resolution":{"observed_at":"2026-08-06T00:21:06.067168Z","resolver_source":null,"status":"unresolved"},"standing_notice":{"events":[],"reason":"canonical_work_link_unavailable","source_receipts":[],"state":"unavailable"}}],"paper":{"arxiv_id":"2608.01388","last_updated":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","latest_version":1,"primary_category":"cs.CR","snapshot_observed_at":"2026-08-14T09:19:12.434430Z","submitted_at":"2026-08-02T17:08:21Z","title":"Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety"},"reference_resolution":{"displayed":15,"state_counts":{"malformed_identifier":0,"metadata_mismatch":0,"parse_uncertain":0,"unresolved":6,"verified_exact":1,"verified_fuzzy":8},"total_outbound_references":15},"refusal":"A citation records a reference. It does not transfer a finding from one paper to another.","schema":"pith.paper-citation-record.v1","standing_sources":[{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:59.297886+00:00","source":"crossref"},{"observed_at":"2026-08-16T06:30:54.164669+00:00","source":"retraction_watch"}],"thesis":"As of 16 August 2026, this Paper Citation Record lists 15 of 15 outbound references and 0 inbound Pith citation observations for arXiv:2608.01388."}