Do Coding Agents Understand Least-Privilege Authorization?

As coding agents gain access to shells, repositories, and user files, least-privilege authorization becomes a prerequisite for safe deployment: an agent should receive enough authority to complete the task, without unnecessary authority that exposes sensitive surfaces.To study whether current models can infer this boundary themselves, we first introduce permission-boundary inference, where a model maps a task instruction and terminal environment to a file-level read/write/execute policy, and AuthBench, a benchmark of 120 realistic terminal tasks with human-reviewed permission labels and executable validators for utility and attack outcomes.AuthBench shows that authorization is not a simple conservative-versus-permissive calibration problem: frontier models often omit permissions required by the execution chain while also granting unused or sensitive accesses.Increasing inference-time reasoning does not resolve this mismatch. Instead, each model moves toward a model-specific authorization attractor: more reasoning makes it more consistent in its own failure mode, whether broad-but-exposed or tight-but-brittle.This suggests that direct policy generation is the bottleneck, because a single generation must both discover all necessary accesses and reject all unnecessary ones.We therefore propose Sufficiency-Tightness Decomposition, which first generates a coverage-oriented policy by forward-simulating the task and then audits each granted entry for grounding and sensitivity.Across tested models, this decomposition improves sensitive-task success by up to 15.8% on tightness-biased models while reducing attack success across all evaluated models.

OMIBench: Benchmarking Olympiad-Level Multi-Image Reasoning in Large Vision-Language Model

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have made substantial advances in reasoning tasks at the Olympiad level. Nevertheless, current Olympiad-level multimodal reasoning benchmarks for these models often emphasize single-image analysis and fail to exploit contextual information across multiple images. We present OMIBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate Olympiad-level reasoning when the required evidence is distributed over multiple images. It contains problems from biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics Olympiads, together with manually annotated rationales and evaluation protocols for both exact and semantic answer matching. Across extensive experiments on OMIBench, we observe meaningful performance gaps in existing models. Even the strongest LVLMs, such as Gemini-3-Pro, attain only about 50% on the benchmark. These results position OMIBench as a focused resources for studying and improving multi-image reasoning in LVLMs.