arXiv AI

TARE: Weigh a Never-Poisoned Twin Before Reading Backdoor-Defense Costs

arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 12

Space Over Statistic, Retraining Over Ranking: Auditing Training Labels Under Label-Only Backdoors

The paper investigates how the choice of feature space affects the effectiveness of label‑only backdoor detection. By keeping the test, labels, and metric constant while swapping feature spaces, the authors show that defenses can perform very differently—e.g., a nearest‑neighbor check yields AUROC 0.546 on poisoned features but 0.995 on frozen DINOv2 features. They also demonstrate that higher detection scores do not necessarily translate to safer models and that static prototype‑based audits can be bypassed by adaptive attackers.

By Arnab Dey, Mohammad Mahfuzul Islam
arXiv AI
Jun 3

Which Defense Closes Which Threat? Attributing OWASP-LLM-Top-10 Coverage and Its Brittleness Under Paraphrasing

arXiv:2606. 02822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Production LLM applications stack several defense families -- refusal-phrase filters, token-budget controls, model allowlists, rate limits, tool-registry authentication -- yet existing breach-and-attack-simulation (BAS) benchmarks report a single aggregate coverage number, hiding which family closes which threat.

By Alexandre Cristov\~ao Maiorano
arXiv AI
Aug 13

Backdoor Decontamination Dynamics in LLM Agents

arXiv:2608. 11295v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-weight LLM agents are vulnerable to backdoors installed during fine-tuning, which may be undetectable if the trigger conditions are never met during testing.

By Gabriel Huang, Abhay Puri, L\'eo Boisvert, Alexandre Drouin, Perouz Taslakian, Spandana Gella, Christopher Pal
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Interface-Induced Trajectory Censoring

The paper reports that agent evaluations often show a tool‑call rate of zero even when the model emits valid calls, because the interface censors the trajectory before downstream components see it. Experiments on BFCL v4 and tau‑bench demonstrate that swapping the serving adapter can change the observed call rate from 0.00 to 0.96/0.19 or from 0 to 636 calls, indicating that the interface—not the model—causes the discrepancy. A 98‑line preflight check is released to detect such silent failures, highlighting that tool‑call rates depend on the model‑interface stack rather than the model alone.

By Wenbo Wang
arXiv AI
Oct 7

Evaluate the Stack, Not the Layer: Do Deterministic and LLM Gates for Agent Actions Fail Independently?

The study evaluates how runtime gates for agent tool calls stack, assuming their errors multiply. Using 1,119 labeled agent actions from three corpora, the authors compare a deterministic rule layer with four LLM judges, measuring the effective number of multiplication-equivalent layers (n_mult). Results show that two judges compose to about 1.2–1.4 layers, while a rule layer plus one judge composes to roughly 1.86–2.09 layers, with variations depending on miss definitions and corpora.

By Chenglin Yang