Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This paper studies how poisoned retrieved context can push an LLM into choosing a schema-valid action that causes a policy-violating state change in a workflow. Its main contribution is an execution-aware protocol that traces the attack from retrieval through model choice and persisted state, rather than scoring only the model's output. The results are preliminary: some contrasts are not statistically significant after correction, and the authors describe the findings as exploratory. For AI readers, the notable point is that adding correct evidence reduced wrong executions substantially even without attack-specific defenses, so general evidence quality may matter as much as targeted filtering.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Poisoned into Action: Context Attacks on Typed Decision Workflows

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.15537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Typed decision interfaces restrict models to predefined actions, yet schema-valid choices can still trigger policy-violating state changes. Evaluating context poisoning thus requires connecting model decisions to execution outcomes while accounting for legitimate automation retained by defenses. We introduce an execution-aware protocol tracing poisoned evidence through retrieval, model choice, automated action, and persisted state. We evaluate it with 1,659 fresh calls to Jev-1.13.0 across 20 development tasks in two synthetic workflows, using three repetitions per condition. Under natural retrieval, a standalone payload reaches all 60 trials and produces five security-violating executions, while a carrier-payload pair exposes the payload in 57 trials and produces one violation. An initial source-exclusion gate blocks the pair's observed violation but also withholds ten otherwise correct attacked decisions and sixteen correct clean decisions. Correcting its empty-scope behavior restores twelve clean decisions without additional model calls. Factorial controls show that adding correct evidence reduces wrong executions from 119/120 to 55/120 in the semantic arm and from 60/120 to zero in the neutral arm, suggesting that much of the improvement reflects general evidence value rather than attack-specific protection. Three prespecified contrasts are not statistically supported after Holm correction, so the findings remain exploratory. The protocol provides an auditable framework for studying which poisoning-induced errors reach execution and how much correct automation defenses preserve. Code is available at https://github.com/WuXixiong/jev-poisoning-bench.

Abstract:Typed decision interfaces restrict models to predefined actions, yet schema-valid choices can still trigger policy-violating state changes. Evaluating context poisoning thus requires connecting model decisions to execution outcomes while accounting for legitimate automation retained by defenses. We introduce an execution-aware protocol tracing poisoned evidence through retrieval, model choice, automated action, and persisted state. We evaluate it with 1,659 fresh calls to Jev-1.13.0 across 20 development tasks in two synthetic workflows, using three repetitions per condition. Under natural retrieval, a standalone payload reaches all 60 trials and produces five security-violating executions, while a carrier-payload pair exposes the payload in 57 trials and produces one violation. An initial source-exclusion gate blocks the pair's observed violation but also withholds ten otherwise correct attacked decisions and sixteen correct clean decisions. Correcting its empty-scope behavior restores twelve clean decisions without additional model calls. Factorial controls show that adding correct evidence reduces wrong executions from 119/120 to 55/120 in the semantic arm and from 60/120 to zero in the neutral arm, suggesting that much of the improvement reflects general evidence value rather than attack-specific protection. Three prespecified contrasts are not statistically supported after Holm correction, so the findings remain exploratory. The protocol provides an auditable framework for studying which poisoning-induced errors reach execution and how much correct automation defenses preserve. Code is available at this https URL.

13 pages, 3 figures. Code available at this https URL

Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.15537 [cs.CR]

(or arXiv:2610.15537v1 [cs.CR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15537 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 329 words

Related coverage