跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科，以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词，把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描：2026-11-09 02:00 · 全站最近入库：2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 02:06 — 2026-11-09 02:06（北京时间） · 点击数字查看对应简报；AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查：2026-11-09 02:00最近发现新增版本：2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间：2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常；新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

研究日报 / 周报 →按信源浏览 →

时间范围跟随排序：版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常，查看状态 →

找到 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 01:58（北京时间）
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02788

Rethinking Neural Decompilation: Candidate Selection as the Hidden Bottleneck

Felix Mächtle, Gautham Sriram, Manjil Neupane, Nils Loose, Thomas Eisenbarth

原文摘要

Reverse engineering obfuscated binaries is a core task in malware analysis and software security auditing. While neural decompilers based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have improved the readability and functional fidelity of recovered code over heuristic tools such as Ghidra and IDA Pro, a substantial gap remains between best-sample performance and practical single-output accuracy, particularly under code obfuscation. We study this gap through the lens of candidate generation and candidate selection. Using the LLM4Decompile architecture, we show that ground-truth tokens lie within the model's top-five next-token predictions in 95.6% of positions on average and that multi-sample decoding reaches a pass@100 of 93% on HumanEval-Decompile, indicating that correct reconstructions are typically already present in the model's sampling space. We then evaluate a generate-then-select pipeline that ranks 100 candidates per input with text-, syntax-, embedding-, consensus-, and likelihood-based selectors. Negative perplexity emerges as the strongest static selector on HumanEval-Decompile (73.3% pass@1), while execution-guided selection nearly closes the oracle gap on ExeBench (86.3% pass@1). Combined with one epoch of fine-tuning on our newly released ExeBench-Obfuscated dataset containing 362,647 obfuscated OLLVM samples, the same pipeline increases the pass@1 rate for obfuscated binaries to 88.8%, directly contradicting prior claims that released LLM4Decompile checkpoints are unsuitable for obfuscated inputs.

cs.CR · cs.AI

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2606.09697

PsychoSafe: Eliciting Psychologically-Informed Refusals in Large Language Models

Gianluca Barmina, Federico Torrielli, Sven Harms, Jacob Nielsen, Flavia Filesi, Felix Mächtle, Stine Lyngsø Beltoft, Peter Schneider-Kamp 等 11 位作者

原文摘要

Large language models (LLMs) routinely face requests that should be refused, creating a trade-off between helpfulness and harm prevention. However, refusals themselves can be helpful. In high-risk interactions involving crisis, coercion, or escalating intent, blunt non-compliance may prevent direct harm while still failing to support the needs of the person behind the request. We present PsychoSafe, a psychologically-informed refusal framework that reframes refusal as structured supportive communication grounded in evidence-based intervention strategies. To develop PsychoSafe, we construct a corpus of 8,019 prompt-response pairs spanning five psychologically salient risk domains and apply prompting and parameter-efficient fine-tuning to Qwen 3.5 27B. On a balanced validation set of 500 prompts, evaluated with an LLM judge and validated through human ratings, PsychoSafe prompting improves overall refusal quality by 28.1% over a generic baseline, with particularly strong gains in external resource referral (+46.8%) and psychological grounding (+34.8%), while preserving downstream performance on non-refusal tasks. Fine-tuning achieves near-perfect refusal and resource-referral rates but reduces response relevance. Additional evaluations on SORRY-Bench and XSTest show strong in-domain robustness but limited out-of-domain generalization, suggesting that future work should diversify fine-tuning data to help models apply interventions selectively rather than schematically.

cs.CL

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.34923

Attack logics, not outputs: Concept-based Property Attacks for Shortcut Elimination in Neural Networks

Raik Dankworth, Felix Mächtle, Thomas Eisenbarth, Gesina Schwalbe

原文摘要

Deep neural networks (NNs) for computer vision are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, such that minuscule malicious changes to inputs may induce unintuitive outputs. One key approach to verify and mitigate such robustness issues is to falsify expected output behavior, which enables local robustness guarantees and adversarial training. Due to the black-box nature of NNs, current attacks only falsify a class of the final output, such as flipping from $\text{stop_sign}$ to $\neg \text{stop_sign}$. In this work we argue that robustness analysis should focus more generally on logical inconsistencies in concept-level reasoning rather than solely on output misclassification. We formalize this perspective through concept-based properties, i.e., constraints over human-interpretable concepts such as $\text{red} \land \text{octogonal} \implies \text{stop_sign}$ and study the falsification of such properties as a principled form of adversarial attack. Furthermore, an implementation of concept-based properties on already trained NNs is proposed using techniques from concept-based explainable artificial intelligence (C-XAI). For that we formally prove that attacks on concept-based properties are expected to have a reduced search space compared to simple class falsification, whilst arguably be more aligned with intuitive robustness targets. The practical effectiveness of our approach for logically informed adversarial training is shown in an empirical study across multiple models and datasets, including both vision and a security-relevant code processing task. Our results demonstrate that concept-level falsification generalizes classical adversarial attacks: Retraining on our novel attacks maintains robustness gains as compared to classical adversarial retraining whilst better eliminating semantic biases.

cs.CR · cs.LG

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗