arxiv: 2605.08828 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

When Agents Overtrust Environmental Evidence: An Extensible Agentic Framework for Benchmarking Evidence-Grounding Defects in LLM Agents

Liyi Zhou, Strick Sheng, Ziyue Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 06:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords LLM agentsevidence-grounding defectsEnvTrustBenchenvironmental groundingagent reliabilitytask benchmarksverification policy

0 comments

The pith

LLM agents treat uncertain or stale environment observations as reliable evidence and proceed with incorrect actions.

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

The paper introduces EnvTrustBench, a framework that generates task scenarios, executes LLM agents against environments with potentially faulty observations, and checks whether the agents ground their decisions in verified current evidence. An evidence-grounding defect occurs when an agent accepts an environment-facing claim without resolving it against fresher or contradictory data, producing a task-incorrect outcome. The authors create 55 cases across 11 scenarios using six LLM backbones and five scaffolds, running five feedback-guided iterations per scenario, and find these defects appear consistently in agent trajectories. This reveals environmental grounding as a systems-level reliability issue involving context admission, provenance, freshness, and action gating.

Core claim

EnvTrustBench defines an evidence-grounding defect as a behavioral failure in which an agent treats an environment-facing claim as sufficient evidence for action without resolving it against available current evidence, leading to a task-incorrect false path under the true environment state. The framework generates the workspace and objective, runs the evaluated agent while recording action-observation trajectories, and applies an oracle to produce a verdict. Testing across 55 cases shows these defects consistently emerge regardless of the LLM backbone or scaffold.

What carries the argument

Evidence-grounding defect (EGD), the defined behavioral failure where an agent accepts an unresolved environment-facing claim as basis for action instead of checking against true current state.

If this is right

Evidence-grounding defects appear across all tested LLM backbones and scaffolds in operational workflows.
Environmental grounding constitutes a core agent reliability problem separate from prompt injection or memory poisoning.
Defects carry security implications when agents act on malicious or manipulated environmental evidence.
Verification policies, freshness checking, and action gating are required to prevent agents from following false paths.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Agent scaffolds would benefit from built-in mechanisms that force evidence resolution before tool calls or state updates.
Task benchmarks that ignore observation reliability may overestimate real-world agent performance in dynamic environments.
Extending the cases to include live API manipulations or log tampering could expose further grounding failure modes.

Load-bearing premise

The 55 generated cases and their validation oracles accurately represent real-world evidence-grounding defects rather than artifacts of the feedback-guided generation process.

What would settle it

Running the same 55 cases on agents that include explicit freshness checks, provenance tracking, and evidence-resolution steps before every action and finding zero defects would show the defects are not consistent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08828 by Liyi Zhou, Strick Sheng, Ziyue Wang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: EnvTrustBench workflow. A user-defined scenario is expanded into a concrete workspace, environment, task objective, and validation oracle. The evaluated agent then runs on the generated task, while EnvTrustBench records the execution trace and applies the oracle to produce a verdict. caused by treating environment-facing claims as sufficient ground for action without resolving them against available curren… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: compresses the stack matrix in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: compresses the shared-backbone region of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large language model agents increasingly operate through environment-facing scaffolds that expose files, web pages, APIs, and logs. These observations influence tool use, state tracking, and action sequencing, yet their reliability and authority are often uncertain. Environmental grounding is therefore a systems-level problem involving context admission, evidence provenance, freshness checking, verification policy, action gating, and model reasoning. Existing agent benchmarks mainly evaluate task capability or specific attacks such as prompt injection and memory poisoning, but they under-specify a fundamental reliability question: whether agents remain grounded in the true environment state when observations are stale, incorrect, or malicious. We introduce EnvTrustBench, an agentic framework for benchmarking this failure mode. We define an evidence-grounding defect (EGD) as a behavioral failure in which an agent treats an environment-facing claim as sufficient evidence for action without resolving it against available current evidence, leading to a task-incorrect false path under the true environment state. Given a task scenario, EnvTrustBench generates the workspace, environment, agent-facing objective, and validation oracle, executes the evaluated agent, records its action-observation trajectory and final state, and applies the oracle to produce a verdict. Using 6 LLM backbones and 5 widely used scaffolds, we evaluate 55 generated cases across 11 task scenarios, with each scenario expanded through five feedback-guided generation iterations. Results show that EGDs consistently emerge across operational workflows, highlighting environmental grounding as a core agent reliability problem with important security implications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

EnvTrustBench defines a new benchmark for evidence-grounding defects in agents but relies on fully synthetic LLM-generated cases that risk creating the failures it claims to discover.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper introduces EnvTrustBench, a framework that generates scenarios to test whether LLM agents act on stale or incorrect environmental evidence without checking the current state. It defines an evidence-grounding defect as a failure where the agent treats an environment-facing claim as sufficient without resolving it against available evidence, then runs agents through generated workspaces, objectives, and oracles to detect these issues. They report consistent emergence across 6 backbones and 5 scaffolds on 55 cases built from 11 scenarios with five feedback iterations. This targets a systems-level reliability gap that most existing benchmarks skip in favor of task success or prompt attacks. The automated generation pipeline is practical for creating many tests quickly and ties the problem to security implications like bad actions based on bad data from tools or logs. That part is useful for anyone thinking about how agents handle uncertain observations from files, APIs, or web pages. The soft spot is the circularity in the setup. The generator and oracle are themselves LLM-driven and operate inside the same loop that produces the cases, so the defects could be downstream effects of how the scenarios are constructed rather than independent evidence of real-world behavior. There is no external check against production logs, human-curated traces, or existing failure corpora to confirm the cases are representative. The abstract also gives no failure counts, error bars, or oracle construction details, which leaves the strength of the consistency claim hard to judge from the summary alone. This is for researchers working on agent benchmarks and robustness. A reader focused on safety evaluations might find the framework idea worth adapting, but would need the full methods and data to assess reproducibility. It deserves peer review because the core problem it names is real and under-studied, even if the current evidence is preliminary and the generation process needs closer examination for artifacts.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces EnvTrustBench, an extensible agentic framework for benchmarking evidence-grounding defects (EGDs) in LLM agents. An EGD is defined as an agent treating an environment-facing claim as sufficient evidence for action without resolving it against current true state, leading to task-incorrect behavior. The framework uses LLM-driven generation to create workspace, environment, objective, and oracle for 55 cases across 11 scenarios (expanded via five feedback iterations), then evaluates agents on 6 LLM backbones and 5 scaffolds, reporting that EGDs consistently emerge with security implications.

Significance. If the generated cases and oracles validly capture real-world grounding failures rather than construction artifacts, the work identifies environmental grounding (context admission, provenance, freshness, verification) as a core systems-level reliability gap in tool-using agents. This extends existing benchmarks focused on prompt injection or capability, and the multi-backbone/scaffold design supports claims of generality. The framework's extensibility and oracle-based verdict mechanism are practical strengths for future agent reliability research.

major comments (3)

[§4 and §5] §4 (Case Generation) and §5 (Evaluation): The 55 cases are produced entirely by an LLM-driven generator that creates the environment, injects evidence, defines the oracle, and iterates with feedback; this risks circularity where observed EGDs are downstream artifacts of the generator's stale-evidence injection rather than independent evidence of agent failures in natural workflows. No external anchor (human-curated traces, production logs, or comparison to existing agent failure corpora) is described to validate representativeness.
[Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (Results): The central claim of 'consistent emergence' across 6 backbones and 5 scaffolds is stated without quantitative metrics, per-scenario failure rates, error bars, or breakdown of how many agents failed per case; this leaves the severity and statistical reliability of the finding unevaluable from the provided description.
[§3] §3 (Definition of EGD): The operational definition of EGD ties directly to the oracle verdict on 'task-incorrect false path under the true environment state,' but the manuscript does not detail how the oracle itself is constructed or validated for correctness independent of the same LLM family used for generation and agent execution.

minor comments (2)

[§2] §2 (Related Work): The discussion of existing benchmarks could explicitly contrast EnvTrustBench with prior agent evaluation suites that include environment interaction (e.g., WebArena, ToolBench) to clarify the novel focus on grounding defects.
[Abstract] Notation: The acronym EGD is introduced without a clear expansion on first use in the abstract; a parenthetical definition would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment below with point-by-point responses, indicating planned revisions where appropriate to improve the manuscript's rigor and clarity.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (Case Generation) and §5 (Evaluation): The 55 cases are produced entirely by an LLM-driven generator that creates the environment, injects evidence, defines the oracle, and iterates with feedback; this risks circularity where observed EGDs are downstream artifacts of the generator's stale-evidence injection rather than independent evidence of agent failures in natural workflows. No external anchor (human-curated traces, production logs, or comparison to existing agent failure corpora) is described to validate representativeness.

Authors: We acknowledge the risk of circularity inherent in fully synthetic generation. The five feedback iterations were explicitly designed to produce cases that elicit observable agent behaviors rather than merely reproducing generator artifacts, and the scenarios draw from documented classes of grounding failures in the agent literature. In revision we will add a new subsection in §4 that (a) maps each of the 11 scenarios to specific failure modes reported in prior agent reliability studies and (b) explicitly discusses the limitations of the current synthetic approach. We cannot supply production logs for privacy reasons, but the framework's extensibility section will be expanded to describe how users may substitute human-curated or log-derived cases. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (Results): The central claim of 'consistent emergence' across 6 backbones and 5 scaffolds is stated without quantitative metrics, per-scenario failure rates, error bars, or breakdown of how many agents failed per case; this leaves the severity and statistical reliability of the finding unevaluable from the provided description.

Authors: We agree that the abstract and §5 currently lack the quantitative detail needed to evaluate the claim. In the revised manuscript we will (i) update the abstract with aggregate EGD rates across the six backbones and five scaffolds, (ii) add a table in §5 reporting per-scenario and per-case failure percentages, and (iii) include 95% confidence intervals derived from the multiple runs performed. These additions will make the severity and consistency of the observed defects directly assessable. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (Definition of EGD): The operational definition of EGD ties directly to the oracle verdict on 'task-incorrect false path under the true environment state,' but the manuscript does not detail how the oracle itself is constructed or validated for correctness independent of the same LLM family used for generation and agent execution.

Authors: We will expand §3 with a new paragraph detailing the oracle construction pipeline: each oracle is generated from an explicit prompt that receives the true environment state, the injected evidence, and the task objective, then produces a deterministic verdict function. The prompt templates and verification logic will be provided in the appendix. To address independence, the revision will also report a sensitivity analysis in which oracles generated by a held-out model family are substituted for the original oracles; any change in verdicts will be quantified. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical benchmark framework without derivation chains or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper introduces EnvTrustBench as a synthetic generation and evaluation framework for evidence-grounding defects (EGDs), defines the defect operationally, generates 55 cases via LLM-driven iteration, and reports empirical failure rates across 6 backbones and 5 scaffolds. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are present. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The central claim (EGDs consistently emerge) is an observed outcome of agent executions against generated oracles, not a result that reduces by construction to the generation inputs. The work is self-contained as a benchmark definition and measurement exercise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that generated scenarios and oracles can stand in for real environmental evidence defects. No free parameters are described. The main invented entity is the EGD behavioral failure mode.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Environmental observations in agent scaffolds can be stale, incorrect, or malicious.
Stated in the opening paragraph as the motivation for the benchmark.
domain assumption An oracle can be constructed that knows the true environment state and can judge agent actions.
Implicit in the description of how verdicts are produced.

invented entities (1)

Evidence-grounding defect (EGD) no independent evidence
purpose: To label the specific behavioral failure where an agent acts on unverified environmental claims.
Newly defined in the abstract as the core concept the benchmark measures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1435 out tokens · 67778 ms · 2026-05-13T06:56:05.044775+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
EnvTrustBench generates the workspace, environment, agent-facing objective, and validation oracle...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Agen- tHarm: A benchmark for measuring harmfulness of LLM agents

Maksym Andriushchenko, Alexandra Souly, Mateusz Dziemian, Derek Duenas, Maxwell Lin, Justin Wang, Dan Hendrycks, Andy Zou, Zico Kolter, Matt Fredrikson, Yarin Gal, and Xander Davies. Agen- tHarm: A benchmark for measuring harmfulness of LLM agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/pap...

work page 2025
[2]

Claude code overview.https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/claude-code/overview,

Anthropic. Claude code overview.https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/claude-code/overview,

work page
[3]

Accessed May 6, 2026

work page 2026
[4]

AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases

Zhaorun Chen, Zihan Xiang, Chaowei Xiao, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, 2024. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/ hash/eb113910e9c3f6242541c1652e30dfd6-Abstract-Conference.html

work page 2024
[5]

Agentdojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for LLM agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:82895–82920, 2024

Edoardo Debenedetti, Jie Zhang, Mislav Balunovic, Luca Beurer-Kellner, Marc Fischer, and Florian Tramèr. Agentdojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for LLM agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:82895–82920, 2024. doi: 10. 52202/079017-2636. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2...

work page 2024
[7]

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18575

work page arXiv
[8]

Gemini cli.https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/ gemini-cli, 2026

Google. Gemini cli.https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/ gemini-cli, 2026. Accessed May 6, 2026

work page 2026
[9]

Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection

Kai Greshake, Sahar Abdelnabi, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. More than you’ve asked for: A comprehensive analysis of novel prompt injection threats to application- integrated large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12173, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[10]

Mohammed Mehedi Hasan, Hao Li, Emad Fallahzadeh, Gopi Krishnan Rajbahadur, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E. Hassan. Model context protocol (MCP) at first glance: Studying the security and maintain- ability of MCP servers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13538, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.13538. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13538

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.13538 2025
[11]

API-bank: A comprehensive benchmark for tool-augmented LLMs

Minghao Li, Yingxiu Zhao, Bowen Yu, Feifan Song, Hangyu Li, Haiyang Yu, Zhoujun Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. API-bank: A comprehensive benchmark for tool-augmented LLMs. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3102–3116, 2023. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.187. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2023.e...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.187 2023
[12]

AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as agents

Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kai Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xiang Deng, Aohan Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chen- hui Zhang, Sheng Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, Huan Sun, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representation...

work page 2024
[13]

Codex quickstart.https://developers.openai.com/codex/quickstart, 2026

OpenAI. Codex quickstart.https://developers.openai.com/codex/quickstart, 2026. Accessed May 6, 2026

work page 2026
[14]

Openclaw.https://docs.openclaw.ai/cli/agent, 2026

OpenClaw Project Contributors. Openclaw.https://docs.openclaw.ai/cli/agent, 2026. Ac- cessed May 6, 2026. 10

work page 2026
[15]

Opencode documentation.https://dev.opencode.ai/docs/, 2026

OpenCode. Opencode documentation.https://dev.opencode.ai/docs/, 2026. Accessed May 6, 2026

work page 2026
[16]

ToolLLM: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world APIs

Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. ToolLLM: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world APIs. InInternational Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2024....

work page 2024
[17]

Maddison, and Tatsunori Hashimoto

Yangjun Ruan, Honghua Dong, Andrew Wang, Silviu Pitis, Yongchao Zhou, Jimmy Ba, Yann Dubois, Chris J. Maddison, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Identifying the risks of LM agents with an LM-emulated sandbox. InInternational Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2024. URLhttps://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/ 7274ed909a312d4d869cc328ad1c5f04...

work page 2024
[18]

Beyond the protocol: Unveiling attack vectors in the model context protocol (MCP) ecosystem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02040, 2025

Hao Song, Yiming Shen, Wenxuan Luo, Leixin Guo, Ting Chen, Jiashui Wang, Beibei Li, Xiaosong Zhang, and Jiachi Chen. Beyond the protocol: Unveiling attack vectors in the model context protocol (MCP) ecosystem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02040, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506. 02040

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

Xingyao Wang, Boxuan Li, Yufan Song, Frank F. Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Ji- ayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, Hoang Tran, Fuqiang Li, Ren Ma, Mingzhang Zheng, Bill Qian, Daniel Shao, Niklas Muennighoff, Yizhe Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Junyang Lin, Robert Brennan, Hao Peng, Heng Ji, and Graham Neubig. OpenHands: An open platform for AI softw...

work page 2025
[20]

OSWorld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments

Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, Xiaochuan Li, Siheng Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Toh Jing Hua, Zhoujun Cheng, Dongchan Shin, Fangyu Lei, Yitao Liu, Yiheng Xu, Shuyan Zhou, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong, Victor Zhong, and Tao Yu. OSWorld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments. InAdvances in Neural Information P...

work page 2024
[21]

TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Tasks

Frank F. Xu, Yufan Song, Boxuan Li, Yuxuan Tang, Kritanjali Jain, Mengxue Bao, Zora Z. Wang, Xuhui Zhou, Zhitong Guo, Murong Cao, Mingyang Yang, Hao Yang Lu, Amaad Martin, Zhe Su, Le- ander Maben, Raj Mehta, Wayne Chi, Lawrence Jang, Yiqing Xie, Shuyan Zhou, and Graham Neu- big. TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM agents on consequential real world tasks.ar...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[22]

ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models

Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[23]

InInternational Conference on Learning Representations,

Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik Narasimhan.τ-bench: A benchmark for tool- agent-user interaction in real-world domains. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations,

work page
[24]

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12045

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[25]

Bench- marking and defending against indirect prompt injection attacks on large language models

Jingwei Yi, Yueqi Xie, Bin Zhu, Emre Kiciman, Guangzhong Sun, Xing Xie, and Fangzhao Wu. Bench- marking and defending against indirect prompt injection attacks on large language models. InProceed- ings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1809–1820,

work page
[26]

URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3690624.3709179

doi: 10.1145/3690624.3709179. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3690624.3709179

work page doi:10.1145/3690624.3709179
[27]

https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.624

Qiusi Zhan, Zhixiang Liang, Zifan Ying, and Daniel Kang. Injecagent: Benchmarking indirect prompt injections in tool-integrated large language model agents. InFindings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 10471–10506, Bangkok, Thailand, 2024. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.624...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.624 2024
[28]

Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents

Hanrong Zhang, Jingyuan Huang, Kai Mei, Yifei Yao, Zhenting Wang, Chenlu Zhan, Hongwei Wang, and Yongfeng Zhang. Agent security bench (ASB): Formalizing and benchmarking attacks and defenses in LLM-based agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2410.02644. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02644. Accepted by ICLR 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[29]

Attacks on third-party APIs of large language models

Wanru Zhao, Vidit Khazanchi, Haodi Xing, Xuanli He, Qiongkai Xu, and Nicholas Donald Lane. Attacks on third-party APIs of large language models. InICLR 2024 Workshop on Secure and Trustworthy Large Language Models, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/pdf?id=z48GQEpAqH. 11 A Task Scenario Descriptions Each task scenario is a reusable operational workflow in wh...

work page 2024