跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

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
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 02:35 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 03:29 — 2026-11-15 03:29(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:2026-11-15 02:35最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 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。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 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 2026-11-15 02:34(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.16158

PolicySniff: Inferring Agent Policy States through Shared-GPU Execution

Weimin Fu, Minghao Shao, Zeng Wang, Qiying Li, Yuntao Liu, Johann Knechtel, Ozgur Sinanoglu, Muhammad Shafique 等 10 位作者

原文摘要

LLM agents apply approval settings, such as whether to ask before a consequential tool call, through instructions in their system prompt, and operators keep these settings confidential by restricting access to prompts and responses. Audits check whether an agent obeys its setting, not whether a neighboring process can infer which setting is deployed. PolicySniff infers an agent's approval-policy state through shared-GPU execution. A co-resident attacker that knows the candidate settings and the task first profiles both settings, then times only its own GPU kernels while the agent processes the task. The policy prefix is cached before capture, so the attacker observes processing of a task suffix that is identical under both settings. On an eager sparse mixture-of-experts runtime, where each selected expert runs as separate work, a frozen and blinded study identified the deployed setting at 94.17% balanced accuracy on its primary estimand. Across all authorization conditions, accuracy was 88.82% on tasks for which both settings produce the same decision and 91.98% on tasks where they differ. Hardware replays of expert routing show that its temporal density and layer-and-bucket alignment carry the policy information. Behavioral compliance does not imply configuration confidentiality: deployments that keep their approval setting private should measure its distinguishability on the serving runtime and enforce authorization outside the model.

cs.CR

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.36831

Right Click, Wrong Box: Grading GUI Grounding by What a Click Does

Xiaokang Yuan, Binhui Yao, Luwei Yang, Ruimin Chen, Zeng Wang

原文摘要

Leading GUI grounders score 93 to 96% on ScreenSpot-v2, and reported gaps between new and prior models are about a point. At this level the useful question is what the remaining errors are. Benchmarks count a click as correct only inside one annotated box, but interfaces often expose one action through several elements: a duplicated link, the label of a checkbox, the title next to a logo. The box is not wrong. The rule is incomplete. We call a click correct when executing it produces the same outcome as clicking the annotated target. A probe that executes and fingerprints about a thousand clicks per page turns this definition into outcome maps and an execution judge for live web applications, with no new annotation. We execute the predictions of three strong 7--8B grounders on a code forge and an online shop. About one in five and one in three of the clicks that box scoring rejects reach the intended outcome, and the shares remain one in seven and one in three when the instructions are rewritten as natural tasks. A blind audit of 11 models on ScreenSpot-v2 (three 7--8B grounders and eight 3B variants) finds the same effect on web screenshots, with two independent reviewers on a 60-unit subset. The share is highest for the strongest grounders. Training seeds and test-set sampling add noise that more runs and paired intervals control. Box scoring instead under-counts correct clicks, which repetition does not remove, and the audit-based correction of 0.2 to 1.8 points on ScreenSpot-v2 is as large as the gaps the field reports. The correction is needed in evaluation. In our 3B GRPO study, crediting equivalent clicks in the reward gives no stable gain over box rewards across three seeds and four test sets. We release the probe, the outcome maps, the audit and every prediction.

cs.CV