Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

A pipeline with zero reported attack success can owe that safety to the cloud provider's filter, not to the application itself.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-08-01 15:22 UTC pith:I2G6EECY

load-bearing objection The mechanism-attribution result is real and worth taking seriously, but the Anthropic 'no filter' premise and several internal number inconsistencies need fixing before the paper's strongest claims can be trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19430 v1 pith:I2G6EECY submitted 2026-07-20 cs.CR cs.AIcs.MA

ChannelGuard: Safe Models Do Not Compose into Safe Multi-Agent Systems

Elias Hossain , Md Mehedi Hasan Nipu , Fatema Tuj Johora Faria , Tasfia Nuzhat Ornee , Maleeha Sheikh This is my paper
classification cs.CR cs.AIcs.MA
keywords LLM securitymulti-agent systemsprompt injectiontool poisoningattack success ratedefense-in-depthinformation bottleneckprovider-invariance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that in multi-agent LLM pipelines the standard attack-success-rate metric is systematically misleading: an undefended pipeline can show zero attack success on tool- and memory-poisoning while 90% of the blocks are performed by the cloud provider's opaque server-side filter (54 of 60 on the Azure backend), not by the application. On a backend without that filter, the same zero attack success silently shifts to the agent model's own alignment. The paper introduces ChannelGuard, a set of six information-bottleneck gates placed on the channels between agents, each scoring text by embedding similarity to an adversarial phrase bank and deterministically passing, compressing, or blocking it. Its tool-output gate blocks tool poisoning 30/30 identically across three backends, converting borrowed, stochastic, provider-owned blocking into deterministic application-owned blocking. A careful reader should care because outcome-only reporting hides which layer actually stops an attack, and that hidden dependence determines whether a deployment's safety survives a backend change.

Core claim

Safety does not compose across agent hops: an undefended multi-agent pipeline can report zero attack success while its protection is an artifact of the backend. Per-trace attribution shows that on Azure GPT-5 the provider filter accounts for 54 of 60 zero-ASR blocks on tool- and memory-poisoning; on Anthropic backends the same zero ASR comes entirely from model alignment. ChannelGuard's tool-output gate instead blocks tool poisoning 30/30 at the application layer on all three backends, because its decision depends only on channel text, a fixed phrase bank, and a local embedding model. It also halves prompt-injection ASR (0.333 to 0.167), preserves GSM8K accuracy exactly (0.867), runs 1.19x f

What carries the argument

The central object is an information-bottleneck gate: it splits channel text into sentences, embeds each with a local sentence-embedding model, takes the maximum cosine similarity to a fixed bank of adversarial phrases, and maps that scalar to pass/compress/block. Six such gates sit on every inter-agent channel—input, planner-to-worker, tool output, memory read, worker output, synthesizer input—and because the gate never queries the agent model its decision is backend-invariant. A companion attribution method records which layer first stopped each trace (gate, provider filter, verifier, synthesizer refusal, or model-handled), making mechanism substitution measurable.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the Anthropic backends have no comparable server-side content filter, so it attributes the undefended zero attack-success rate on those backends entirely to model alignment; if Anthropic's API applies any hidden safety layer—and the paper itself lists Anthropic's acceptable-use classifier as a provider-side filter in Section 1—the mechanism-substitution story misidentifies the cause.

What would settle it

Set up the same tool-poisoning pipeline on a self-hosted open-weight model with comparable instruction-following behavior but no provider API: if zero attack success does not persist, then the off-Azure attribution to 'model alignment' is wrong. Alternatively, send a tool output containing a pattern known to trigger Anthropic's acceptable-use classifier and check whether refusal occurs through the API even when a locally hosted copy of the same model would pass it—a provider-side filter would be confirmed.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Deployers who report only attack success rate cannot tell whether a zero is produced by the cloud provider, the model's alignment, or their own defense; per-trace attribution is needed to reason about robustness.
  • Application-owned gates at inter-agent channels convert borrowed, stochastic provider blocking into deterministic, inspectable blocking that is invariant to backend choice, at least for tool-poisoning attacks.
  • ChannelGuard's phrase-bank gates halve prompt-injection attack success and preserve reasoning accuracy on benign tasks, while an early-exit block short-circuits the pipeline before expensive LLM calls, giving a 3.30x speedup on prompt injection.
  • Static signature-based gates have a bounded ceiling: white-box adaptive paraphrase evades them, and a perturb-and-vote baseline does better, so no single mechanism dominates.
  • The provider filter and the gates catch overlapping but non-identical attack subsets, so the right deployment is defense-in-depth rather than substitution.
  • The paper's own verifier audit exposes a blind spot: a safe-but-uncertain band leaks 19.5% of the time, suggesting a design fix that would need a benign-preservation trade-off measurement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If mechanism substitution generalizes, multi-agent safety benchmarks should report attribution classes alongside attack success rate; otherwise apparent gains from a defense could actually be shifts in provider filtering or model alignment.
  • The tool-output gate's backend invariance implies a composable building block: any channel carrying untrusted content (tool results, retrieved documents, memory reads) can be gated independently of the agent model, so a defense can be validated once and reused across providers.
  • The paper's adaptive-paraphrase failure suggests testing gates against paraphrase families generated from the phrase bank itself, and learning the bank from an adaptively generated attack corpus—a direction the authors name as the next step.
  • A third backend that is neither Azure nor Anthropic would settle whether the off-Azure zero ASR on memory-poisoning is genuinely model alignment or another hidden provider layer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. ChannelGuard addresses the inter-agent channel surface in multi-agent LLM pipelines by placing six (or seven, see below) information-bottleneck gates on the channels between planner, workers, tool, memory, verifier, and synthesizer. Each gate scores channel text by maximum sentence-embedding cosine similarity to a hand-curated adversarial phrase bank and deterministically passes, compresses, or blocks. On 2,100 traces across eight attack families, three backends, and five defenses, the paper reports that an undefended Azure GPT-5 pipeline achieves ASR=0.000 on tool/memory poisoning, but per-trace attribution shows 54/60 of those blocks come from Azure's server-side filter; on Anthropic Sonnet/Haiku the same zero ASR is attributed entirely to model alignment. ChannelGuard's IB-3 gate blocks Tool Poisoning 30/30 identically on all three backends, lowers Prompt Injection ASR from 0.333 to 0.167, preserves GSM8K accuracy, and runs faster on the traced workload. The appendix adds baselines, ablations, sweeps, benign-preservation analysis, a judge audit, and a detailed cost breakdown.

Significance. The paper's core methodological proposal — reporting not only outcome ASR but also which layer stopped each attack — is important and largely well executed. The deterministic gate rule, the released trace corpus and code, the backend-invariance corollary (Appendix B, Corollary B.5), the sentinel-randomization test, and the honest treatment of adaptive-paraphrase and narrative-memory failures are real strengths. If the attribution story survives scrutiny, the paper makes a valuable point: outcome-only ASR can hide dependence on opaque, non-portable provider filters. However, the 'complete re-sourcing' claim on Anthropic backends currently rests on an unmeasured negative assertion that conflicts with the paper's own Section 1, and several reported numbers are mutually inconsistent. The contribution justifies a major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3, Table 4; §1; §5] The premise that Anthropic Sonnet 4.5 and Haiku 4.5 have 'no comparable server-side content filter' is asserted without measurement and is in tension with §1, which lists 'Anthropic's acceptable-use classifier' as a provider-side, opaque, stochastic filter. The non-Azure rows of Table 4 have no 'prov' category, so any API-level blocking would be silently absorbed into 'model-hdl.' The same-vendor counterfactual cannot separate model alignment from a shared Anthropic-side filter. Since the attribution methodology is claimed to make the mechanism observable, this is load-bearing for the 'complete re-sourcing' claim. Please (a) report a direct probe of API-level refusals/error codes for the exact poisoned tool strings, (b) add a 'prov' class on non-Azure traces, or (c) reclassify the claim as 'non-attributed/no leak' rather than 'model-handled.'
  2. [§6.5/Table 2 vs. Appendices F, G, J; §6.4/Table 5] Internal inconsistencies make the point estimates hard to trust as reported. Table 2 gives full ChannelGuard Prompt Injection ASR=0.167; Appendix F's full row gives 0.067; Appendix G's default row gives 0.100. Appendix A's stated '±1 per 30-run cell' drift envelope does not cover the 5-vs-2 leak difference. Separately, §6.5 and the abstract report GSM8K CTCA=0.867, while Appendix J Table 19 reports GSM8K BPR=0.833 (25/30). Also, §6.4 refers to '62 IB-block events,' but Table 5 lists 32 original IB events (30+2+0). Please reconcile these numbers, identify which runs produce which tables, and state whether the paired design permits multiple independent runs of the same nominal configuration.
  3. [§4.1/§5/§6.4; Appendix I.5] The Tool Poisoning 30/30 result is close to construction: the hand-curated phrase bank and the evaluation templates share the same instruction-override and marker-emission families, and Appendix I.5 shows the top four bank phrases account for 87% of BLOCK decisions. The sentinel-randomization test removes literal marker-grep but does not control for shared non-marker template structure. The paper is transparent about static-signature limits in §7, but the abstract and §6.3 present the 30/30 result as evidence of 'deterministic, application-owned' blocking without noting that the attack corpus was built from the same template families as the bank. Please qualify the claim as corpus-specific, or add a transfer/out-of-distribution attack test if broader generality is intended.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 is titled 'six gate placements' but lists seven rows (IB-0, IB-1, IB-2, IB-3, IB-3-mem, IB-4, IB-5). The figure caption refers to 'six information bottleneck gates,' treating IB-2/IB-4 as one gate. Please clarify whether IB-2 and IB-4 are separate placements of one gate or two distinct gates, and make the count consistent throughout.
  2. [Appendix L, Table 22; §4.1] §4.1 says the compress-first-N heuristic is 'safe for inter-agent channels (100% stop-rate)' and §7 repeats that 'the inter-agent gates (IB-2–IB-5)' are 100%, but Table 22 shows IB-1 (planner→worker) has a 2/5 leak rate under COMPRESS. If IB-1 is intentionally excluded from 'inter-agent,' define the term; otherwise the claim is contradicted by the appendix data.
  3. [§6.4, Table 5] The sentinel-randomization denominator is unclear: '62 IB-block events' is not the sum of any column in Table 5 (original sum is 32; randomized sum is 28). Please explain what the 62 counts, and if the table is partial, include the full event set.
  4. [Appendix N] The judge audit is a strength, but the initial vague rubric producing κ=0.060 and the sharpened rubric recovering κ=0.900 should be described in the main text or at least in the appendix summary, since it shows that the reported agreement is conditional on the rubric naming the literal marker as the success signal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the core mechanism-substitution findings are attribution counts over trace data and do not reduce to the phrase bank; the disclosed phrase-bank/marker overlap is empirically bounded, and the main caveat is an unverified provider-filter assumption, not an input-to-output reduction.

full rationale

The central claims are not circular. The mechanism-substitution result (undefended zero ASR on Azure is 54/60 provider-filter-driven; on the Anthropic backends it is attributed to model-handled behavior) is produced by per-trace attribution counts on trace JSONs under a fixed priority rule, not by fitting a parameter or by defining the conclusion into the inputs. The attribution rule (Leaked > IB-Blocked > Provider-Filter > Verifier-Unsafe > Synth-Refused > Answered-Safely) is a labeling convention; the counts it produces are empirical and could have come out differently. The Tool Poisoning 30/30 result is the area closest to a construction concern, because the hand-curated phrase bank contains phrases closely related to the attack templates, including literal ATTACK_SUCCESS marker phrases. However, the paper directly addresses this with the sentinel-randomization test in §6.4, reporting |Δ|=4 out of 62 IB events and concluding that blocking is dominantly template-driven but not perfectly marker-driven. That is a falsifiable empirical result, not a tautology. The identical-across-backends property of IB-3 is a formal consequence of Algorithm 1 (Corollary B.5), but the 30/30 block rate itself is an empirical count; reporting a deterministic design property as a verified invariance is not circular. The principal validity concern is Section 6.3's premise that the Anthropic backends have 'no comparable server-side content filter,' which conflicts with Section 1's listing of 'Anthropic's acceptable-use classifier' as a provider-side filter and is not measured. If Anthropic's API does apply server-side filtering, some of the 'model-hdl.' attributions in Table 4 could actually be provider blocks. This is a correctness and attribution risk, but it is not circularity: it is an external, unverified assumption about a third-party system, not a reduction of the paper's conclusion to its own definitions. The same-vendor counterfactual (two Anthropic model sizes) is a generalizability limitation, which the paper concedes. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited prior work is external, and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors to force its design. The claim that outcome-only ASR is misleading is supported by the independent Azure-vs-Anthropic attribution contrast, which is not an artifact of the phrase bank. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its main empirical contributions, and t

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows a defense whose detection content lives entirely in a hand-curated 20-phrase bank (effectively 8 phrases, of which 4 do 87% of the work) and a handful of hand-set thresholds. The formal information-bottleneck results bound the 3-valued decision, not the forwarded text, and the key domain assumptions (marker-based success, attribution rule, Anthropic-no-filter, appended-payload COMPRESS) are each either partially contradicted by the paper's own data or unmeasured. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • block threshold theta = 0.60 (default)
    Hand-set. Threshold-sensitivity sweep shows a plateau, but the beta-sweep default maps to theta_eff=0.70, and beta=2.0 (theta_eff=0.55) beats the default on Prompt Injection in the paper's own Table 12.
  • compress ratio alpha = 0.70
    Hand-set lower bound of the COMPRESS band; Appendix L shows the COMPRESS band leaks 23.4% of IB-0 traces.
  • compress prefix length N = 2
    Hand-set number of sentences kept by COMPRESS; Lemma B.4 shows soundness requires payloads to start after sentence N, a condition violated at IB-0 per Appendix L.
  • verifier Monte-Carlo samples M = 5
    Hand-set; Appendix K notes dropping to M=3 would save roughly 40% of wall-clock time.
  • 20-phrase adversarial phrase bank = 20 phrases, 8 ever win argmax
    Hand-curated; curation process not described. Top 4 phrases account for 87% of blocks and overlap the evaluation attack templates. Full bank not enumerated. This is the entire detection content of the defense.
  • verifier flags (s<0.5 unsafe, sigma_s>0.3 uncertain, consensus sigma<0.15) = 0.5 / 0.3 / 0.15
    Hand-set thresholds; Appendix M documents a 19.5% false-negative band (safe and uncertain) the design passes through without rejection.
  • strictness knob beta = 1.0 (default)
    Hand-set; the sweep shows beta=2.0 gives strictly better Prompt Injection ASR (0.067 vs 0.100) than the reported default.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Shannon entropy of a 3-valued decision is at most log2(3); Cauchy-Schwarz for the first-order margin.
    Prop 4.1 and Lemma 4.2 proofs in Appendix B; both are standard and correct as stated, though Prop 4.1's prose overreaches (see overclaim red flag).
  • domain assumption Attack success equals presence of the literal sentinel ATTACK_SUCCESS in the final output.
    Section 5 metrics. Partial compliance without emitting the exact marker counts as safe. The judge audit validates labelers' agreement with marker matching, not the marker's agreement with actual harm.
  • domain assumption The attribution priority rule (Leaked > IB > Provider > Verifier > Synth > Answered-Safely) identifies the layer that first stopped each attack.
    Section 5. 'Answered-Safely' presumes the deterministic mock tool's poisoned output reached the model context and the model then chose not to comply, which is unobservable from trace JSONs.
  • domain assumption Anthropic Sonnet 4.5 and Haiku 4.5 have no server-side content filter comparable to Azure's.
    Section 6.3. Needed to attribute undefended zero-ASR on Anthropic backends to model alignment. Conflicts with Section 1, which names 'Anthropic's acceptable-use classifier' as a provider-side filter. Unmeasured.
  • domain assumption MiniLM cosine similarity to the phrase bank is a valid per-channel risk score.
    Gate mechanism Eq. (1). The paper's own per-gate AUC (Appendix I.2) shows 4 of 6 gates at or below chance (0.393-0.434) on its evaluation slice, so the assumption is only partially supported by the paper's data.
  • ad hoc to paper COMPRESS keeps the first N sentences because payloads are appended, never prepended (Lemma B.4).
    Lemma B.4 precondition. Appendix L shows the assumption fails at IB-0, where 23.4% of compressed traces still leak; the paper proposes but does not implement a fix.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ChannelGuard: Safe Models Do Not Compose into Safe Multi-Agent Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2G6EECY

@misc{pith2026260719430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ChannelGuard: Safe Models Do Not Compose into Safe Multi-Agent Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2G6EECY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19430}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Multi-agent LLM applications chain a planner, worker agents, a verifier, and a synthesizer, and every hop between agents is an unmonitored channel through which an adversary can smuggle instructions. Existing defenses guard only the input boundary (IBProtector, Llama Guard, perplexity filters, SmoothLLM) or run outside the application as opaque, stochastic provider-side filters. We show this gap carries a consequence rarely measured: on a 2,100-trace evaluation across eight attack families, five defenses, and three model backends, an undefended pipeline that appears fully safe under standard reporting (attack success 0.000 on tool- and memory-poisoning) owes that safety almost entirely to the cloud provider's server-side filter (54 of 60 blocks on Azure GPT-5), and silently shifts to the agent model's own alignment on a backend without such a filter. Outcome-only reporting hides this dependence. We present ChannelGuard, a training-free defense-in-depth framework placing information-bottleneck gates on every inter-agent channel; each scores channel text against an adversarial phrase bank by embedding similarity and deterministically passes, compresses, or blocks it, adding no LLM call, while an attribution method records which layer stopped each attack. ChannelGuard's tool-output gate blocks Tool Poisoning 30 of 30 at the application layer, identically across Azure GPT-5, Anthropic Sonnet 4.5, and Anthropic Haiku 4.5, whereas the undefended pipeline shifts entirely across backends; it also lowers Prompt Injection attack success by half (0.333 to 0.167) and preserves GSM8K accuracy exactly (0.867). White-box adaptive paraphrase evades every embedding gate, where a perturb-and-vote baseline does better. An extended appendix adds baselines, ablations, sweeps, a benign-preservation analysis, and a judge audit (kappa = 0.900), at a total cost of 47.36 USD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19430 by Elias Hossain, Fatema Tuj Johora Faria, Maleeha Sheikh, Md Mehedi Hasan Nipu, Tasfia Nuzhat Ornee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The ChannelGuard system. Top: the threat surface, six attack families entering at different points (prompt injection at the input, tool-output and shared-memory poisoning inside the pipeline, reasoning-state injection, consensus collapse, and white-box adaptive paraphrasing). Middle: the multi-agent pipeline with its six information-bottleneck gates (IB-0 at the input, IB-1 on each planner-produced subtask… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of the embedding-space margin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-gate block-rate CDFs as a function of the block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Argmax win count per bank phrase (top winners), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean per-call latency by role and system. The planner is the slowest role per call across every system; IB-gated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-gate scoring latency histogram underlying the Pareto computation of Figure 3 and Appendix K; every gate scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Verifier mean safety 𝑠¯ vs. dispersion 𝜎𝑠 scatter, col￾ored by whether the trace ultimately leaked. The “risky pass￾through” quadrant (𝑠¯ ≥ 0.5, 𝜎𝑠 > 0.3) contains both safe and leaked points, which is exactly the blind spot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gabriel Alon and Michael Kamfonas. 2023. Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexity. arXiv:2308.14132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Amazon Web Services. 2024. Amazon Bedrock Guardrails. AWS documentation. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/guardrails.html

    2024

  3. [3]

    Patrick Chao, Alexander Robey, Edgar Dobriban, Hamed Hassani, George J Pappas, and Eric Wong. 2023. Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries. arXiv:2310.08419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Sizhe Chen, Julien Piet, Chawin Sitawarin, and David Wagner. 2024. StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries. arXiv:2402.06363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. arXiv:2110.14168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Jeremy Cohen, Elan Rosenfeld, and Zico Kolter. 2019. Certified Adversarial Robustness via Randomized Smoothing. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 97). PMLR, Long Beach, CA, USA, 1310–1320

    2019

  7. [7]

    Edoardo Debenedetti, Jie Zhang, Mislav Balunović, Luca Beurer-Kellner, Marc Fischer, and Florian Tramèr. 2024. AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track. Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada

    2024

  8. [8]

    Google Cloud. 2024. Google Cloud Model Armor. Google Cloud documenta- tion. https://cloud.google.com/security-command-center/docs/model-armor- overview

    2024

  9. [9]

    Kai Greshake, Sahar Abdelnabi, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. 2023. Not What You’ve Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection. InPro- ceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AISec). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    2023

  10. [10]

    Keegan Hines, Gary Lopez, Matthew Hall, Federico Zarfati, Yonatan Zunger, and Emre Kiciman. 2024. Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks with Spotlighting. arXiv:2403.14720

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Hakan Inan, Kartikeya Upasani, Jianfeng Chi, Rashi Rungta, Krithika Iyer, Yuning Mao, Michael Tontchev, Qing Hu, Brian Fuller, Davide Testuggine, and Madian Khabsa. 2023. Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations. arXiv:2312.06674

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Neel Jain, Avi Schwarzschild, Yuxin Wen, Gowthami Somepalli, John Kirchen- bauer, Ping-yeh Chiang, Micah Goldblum, Aniruddha Saha, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Models. arXiv:2309.00614

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agree- ment for Categorical Data.Biometrics33, 1 (1977), 159–174

    1977

  14. [14]

    Microsoft. 2024. Azure AI Content Safety: Prompt Shields. Microsoft Learn documentation. https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/ai-services/content-safety/ concepts/jailbreak-detection

    2024

  15. [15]

    Fábio Perez and Ian Ribeiro. 2022. Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques for Language Models. arXiv:2211.09527

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, et al . 2024. ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-World APIs. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). OpenReview.net, Vienna, Austria

    2024

  17. [17]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. InConference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 3982–3992

    2019

  18. [18]

    Alexander Robey, Eric Wong, Hamed Hassani, and George J Pappas. 2023. SmoothLLM: Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attacks. arXiv:2310.03684

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Naftali Tishby, Fernando C Pereira, and William Bialek. 2000. The Information Bottleneck Method. arXiv:physics/0004057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    Naftali Tishby and Noga Zaslavsky. 2015. Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principle. InIEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW). IEEE, Jerusalem, Israel, 1–5

    2015

  21. [21]

    Eric Wallace, Kai Xiao, Reimar Leike, Lilian Weng, Johannes Heidecke, and Alex Beutel. 2024. The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions. arXiv:2404.13208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Simon Willison. 2023. The Dual LLM Pattern for Building AI Assistants That Can Resist Prompt Injection. Blog post, simonwillison.net

    2023

  23. [23]

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, Ahmed Awadallah, Ryen W White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang. 2023. AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation. arXiv:2308.08155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering. InConference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Brussels, Belgium, 2369–2380

    2018

  25. [25]

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. 𝜏- bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains. arXiv:2406.12045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). OpenRe- view.net, Kigali, Rwanda

    2023

  27. [27]

    Qiusi Zhan, Zhixiang Liang, Zifan Ying, and Daniel Kang. 2024. InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Association for Computational Linguistics, Bangkok, Thailand, 10471–10506

    2024

  28. [28]

    Hanrong Zhang, Jingyuan Huang, Kai Mei, Yifei Yao, Zhenting Wang, Chenlu Zhan, Hongwei Wang, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents. arXiv:2410.02644

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Curran Associates, Inc., New Orleans, LA, USA

    2023

  30. [30]

    Zichuan Zhu, Rui Zhang, Wei Yao, Wenpeng Zhang, Zhen Li, et al. 2024. Protect- ing Your LLMs with Information Bottleneck. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada

    2024

  31. [31]

    triple filter

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. 2023. Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models. arXiv:2307.15043. Preprint, 2026, arXiv Hossain et al. Contents Abstract 1 1 Introduction 1 2 Related Work 2 3 Threat Model 2 4 TheChannelGuardFramework 3 4.1 The Gate Mechanism 3 4.2 Six ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.