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:2026-11-07 19:34 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-07 17:43各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-06 19:37 — 2026-11-07 19:37(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:2026-11-07 19:34最近发现新增版本:2026-11-07 17:43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4,056 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 2026-11-07 19:30(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

原文摘要

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.

cs.SE · cs.CR

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02522

Ranked but Not Stopped: Detecting Prompt-Injection Hijacks from Typed Decision Models' Output Probabilities

Junwei Yao, Jianan Liu, Yongxi Zhou, Zike Yang

原文摘要

Programs that use a language model as a classifier act on its most probable label. Text injected into the input can move that label to one the attacker chooses, a hijack. A monitor that does not know the attacker's label can read the model's own confidence and raise an alarm when the top probability is low. We test this monitor on AG News topic classification with five systems, three of them served through a provider's API. Pooled over five families of injected text, low confidence ranks hijacked answers above clean ones on four of the five systems (AUROC 0.86-0.90). Ranking them does not stop many of them. A threshold set so that at most 5% of clean answers to separate calibration articles alarm falls among the least confident clean answers, and every more confident hijack passes. In our main gate run on the three API-served systems, the monitor misses 51-70% of the hijacks caused by a plain injected note (per-system point estimates). When the note adds one handwritten sentence that calls the target certain and asks for full probability, the monitor misses 99-100% of the hijacks, although low confidence still ranks them at AUROC 0.70-0.79. Confidence monitors should be tested at their operating alarm rate, against attackers who claim certainty.

cs.CL · cs.CR