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

+1163新增论文
+868其中 AI 相关
+88已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 07:02 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 12:13各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 09:15 — 2026-11-06 09:15(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:2026-11-06 07:02最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 12:13库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 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。

15,949 已收录论文13,765 AI 相关3,571 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

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 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 07:00(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02527

When Neither Side Confirms: Destructive Tool Approval Across MCP Servers and Hosts

Junwei Yao, Zike Yang, Zhijun Wang, Yongxi Zhou, Wenbo Ye

LLM agents call tools that delete data or move money through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). The specification asks for a human who can deny tool calls but splits the mechanism between the server, which can annotate a tool or ask the user through the host (elicitation), and the host application, which decides whether to prompt. We measure both sides from source code. In a 1,000-repository sample of the official MCP registry, an estimated 90% of destructive tools (95% CI 82-95) have no server-side confirmation, and most servers that elicit proceed, or fall back to a flag the model can set, when the host cannot relay the question. Of 41 popular open-source hosts and agent SDKs, 32 have no approval step by default, including 16 of 25 applications. Pairing sampled destructive tools flagged by a rule-based extractor with these applications, 60.7% of pairs have no enforced human approval by default. Through four agent SDKs, four of five low-cost models executed an injected deletion in 479 of 960 runs. If hosts prompted for every tool not annotated read-only or non-destructive, the unapproved share of these pairs would fall to 5.4%; universal elicitation support would leave 56.7%. Applications should therefore configure approval.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.SE · cs.CR
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.38181

Component Translation and Judge-Labelled Refusal: A Multilingual Safety Evaluation

Yongxi Zhou, Junwei Yao, Wenbo Ye, Jiahui Ge

Whole-prompt translation evaluates a request in different languages but does not compare which component carries a language. We introduce a paired reversal: translate the complete request component or the complete operation component into the same target language, holding behaviour, English frame and translated-span count fixed. Component identity and non-English text quantity change together. Assigning English, Chinese and Spanish independently to the two components yields nine configurations on 190 of 300 sampled harmful behaviours retained after consensus annotation and automatic gating. Refusal scored by language-model judges is the primary outcome; unsafe compliance is reported separately. On Gemini 2.5 Flash and DeepSeek, three refusal swaps are about 5.3 percentage points and the fourth is -0.5; none survives the pre-specified six-test Holm correction. In an exploratory extension, Mistral Small 4 has a 13.7-point Spanish swap (95% interval [8.4, 18.9]), which survives the twelve-test Holm sensitivity correction under the primary judge, and 12.1 points under a second judge. GPT-5.4-mini estimates are within 2 points of zero. Component assignment supplies an additional evaluation dimension. Evaluations should record component languages and translated text quantity, comparing matched behaviours at equal translated-span count while interpreting refusal and unsafe compliance separately.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL · cs.CR
arXiv ↗PDF ↗