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

+7272新增论文
+6090其中 AI 相关
+125已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 18:27 · 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 2026-11-04 18:34 — 2026-11-05 18:34(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:2026-11-05 18:27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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 18:25(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02689

The Customer Never Sees the Goal: Measuring and Detecting Vulnerability-Targeted Manipulation in LLM Assistants

Bohan Jiang, Dawei Li, Yasin Silva, Huan Liu

Companies deploy large language model (LLM) assistants on their websites to advise customers. For commercial reasons, the operator can give an assistant a goal that the customer never sees. This paper focuses on operator-induced vulnerability-targeted manipulation (VTM), in which an assistant pursues such a goal by exploiting a vulnerability the customer discloses. While existing research mainly measures how manipulative a model is, we go further and ask whether VTM can be detected from the customer-AI conversation. To investigate this at scale, we introduce GAP (Goal-Anchored Probing). GAP first records the option a model recommends without any goal and then sets the other option as the operator's goal. We apply GAP to 15 open- and closed-source LLMs and collect 619,600 labeled replies across 540 everyday scenarios in 12 domains. We organize our study around three research questions. (1) Do assistants with an operator goal target vulnerable customers? (2) Can VTM be detected from the customer-AI conversation? (3) Does detection generalize to unseen models, vulnerabilities, and instruction styles? We first find that 14 of 15 models push the operator goal, and 12 of them use disclosed distress or financial strain to support it. Next, we show that fine-tuned detectors identify exploitative pushes with 79\% accuracy from the reply alone, while zero-shot LLM judges average at most 62\%. Finally, detection weakens on vulnerabilities absent from training. Telling whether a push comes from the operator also becomes unreliable when the assistant is told to hide its goal. We will release our dataset and code to facilitate future research on auditing LLM assistants.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CR · cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗