analiza aiqbench
The paper tests how LLM agents that triage security alerts hold up when the detection tools they rely on are corrupted or disagree. Unverified investigators degrade sharply: with three of four detectors corrupted, accuracy falls to .13 or below. A simple equal-weight vote plus a nearest-neighbour trust check recovers most of that accuracy while calling the LLM on only 0.4% of clean traffic. The authors also show the verifier itself can fail under noise, so the results shift trust to the check rather than removing the need for it.
When AI Investigators Cannot Trust Their Tools: Conflict-Aware Evidence Verification for Cyber Threat Investigation
arXiv:2610.41191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents increasingly triage security alerts by combining the outputs of several detection tools, implicitly treating those tools as trustworthy. Unlike prior work on conflicts between a model's knowledge and its context, we study conflicts among the tools themselves: what happens when this machine-generated evidence is conflicting or wrong. On the corrected CIC-IDS2017 dataset, four heterogeneous detectors emit labels and confidences that we corrupt under a threat model varying the number of corrupted tools, the persistence of the corruption, and the confidence attached to wrong outputs. Across open-weight LLMs from 3B to 14B parameters, unverified investigators are fragile: one corrupted detector out of four lowers naive accuracy to .50-.72, three lower every unverified investigator to .13 or less, and honest disagreement alone makes them abstain on up to 63% of flows. We propose Conflict-Aware Evidence Verification (CAV), built from established components: an equal-weight vote that ignores reported confidences, an evidence-conflict gate, and an independent nearest-neighbour trust check that tests the leading candidates. With its prompt frozen before testing, CAV-LLM improves on the naive investigator in every corrupted condition ($p < 0.001$), reaching .84-.88 with three corrupted detectors against at most .08, while calling the LLM on 0.4% of clean traffic. A fixed verification rule is as accurate or better unless most tools are corrupted. When we make the independent channel itself noisy, CAV inherits its errors: it stays ahead when two or more tools are corrupted, but adding the channel as an extra voter is better when at most one is. Verification thus moves trust from the tools to the check, which must be measured and protected in turn.
Abstract:LLM agents increasingly triage security alerts by combining the outputs of several detection tools, implicitly treating those tools as trustworthy. Unlike prior work on conflicts between a model's knowledge and its context, we study conflicts among the tools themselves: what happens when this machine-generated evidence is conflicting or wrong. On the corrected CIC-IDS2017 dataset, four heterogeneous detectors emit labels and confidences that we corrupt under a threat model varying the number of corrupted tools, the persistence of the corruption, and the confidence attached to wrong outputs. Across open-weight LLMs from 3B to 14B parameters, unverified investigators are fragile: one corrupted detector out of four lowers naive accuracy to .50-.72, three lower every unverified investigator to .13 or less, and honest disagreement alone makes them abstain on up to 63% of flows. We propose Conflict-Aware Evidence Verification (CAV), built from established components: an equal-weight vote that ignores reported confidences, an evidence-conflict gate, and an independent nearest-neighbour trust check that tests the leading candidates. With its prompt frozen before testing, CAV-LLM improves on the naive investigator in every corrupted condition ($p < 0.001$), reaching .84-.88 with three corrupted detectors against at most .08, while calling the LLM on 0.4% of clean traffic. A fixed verification rule is as accurate or better unless most tools are corrupted. When we make the independent channel itself noisy, CAV inherits its errors: it stays ahead when two or more tools are corrupted, but adding the channel as an extra voter is better when at most one is. Verification thus moves trust from the tools to the check, which must be measured and protected in turn.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.41191 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2610.41191v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.41191 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 367 cuvinte