PreprintCited by 10Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Dissecting Adversarial Robustness of Multimodal LM Agents

Open access
Wu, Chen Henry, Shah, Rishi, Koh, Jing Yu, Salakhutdinov, Ruslan, Fried, Daniel, Raghunathan, Aditi·2024·arXiv

Abstract

As language models (LMs) are used to build autonomous agents in real environments, ensuring their adversarial robustness becomes a critical challenge. Unlike chatbots, agents are compound systems with multiple components taking actions, which existing LMs safety evaluations do not adequately address. To bridge this gap, we manually create 200 targeted adversarial tasks and evaluation scripts in a realistic threat model on top of VisualWebArena, a real environment for web agents. To systematically examine the robustness of agents, we propose the Agent Robustness Evaluation (ARE) framework. ARE views the agent as a graph showing the flow of intermediate outputs between components and decomposes robustness as the flow of adversarial information on the graph. We find that we can successfully break latest agents that use black-box frontier LMs, including those that perform reflection and tree search. With imperceptible perturbations to a single image (less than 5% of total web page pixels), an attacker can hijack these agents to execute targeted adversarial goals with success rates up to 67%. We also use ARE to rigorously evaluate how the robustness changes as new components are added. We find that inference-time compute that typically improves benign performance can open up new vulnerabilities and harm robustness. An attacker can compromise the evaluator used by the reflexion agent and the value function of the tree search agent, which increases the attack success relatively by 15% and 20%. Our data and code for attacks, defenses, and evaluation are at https://github.com/ChenWu98/agent-attack

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper introduces VWA-Adv, 200 targeted adversarial tasks on VisualWebArena, and the Agent Robustness Evaluation (ARE) framework to analyze multimodal LM agent robustness. It finds that black-box frontier LM agents can be hijacked to targeted adversarial goals with success rates up to 67%, and that adding inference-time components like evaluators or value functions can open new vulnerabilities.

Key findings

  • With imperceptible perturbations to a single image (L∞ ε = 16/256, less than 5% of total web page pixels), an attacker can hijack agents to execute targeted adversarial goals with success rates up to 67%.
  • Text prompt injection on a GPT-4o policy model achieves 40% ASR; a white-box captioner attack achieves 31% ASR with 92% of captions incorporating adversarial text; the black-box CLIP attack achieves 19% ASR on self-captioning agents (38% adversarial captions) and 10% ASR on base agents.
  • Reflexion with an uncompromised evaluator reduces ASR from 31% to 25%, but jointly attacking policy and evaluator raises ASR to 36%; attacking the evaluator alone yields 8% ASR. Tree search with an uncompromised value function reduces ASR from 31% to 26%, but jointly attacking policy and value function raises ASR to 38%; attacking the value function alone yields 8% ASR.
  • Defenses offer limited gains: system prompt defenses fail to improve robustness, paraphrase lowers ASR from 31% to 27.5%, and explicit consistency checks reduce captioner-attack ASR near zero but are upper bounded by 38% under CLIP attack and increase API calls.

Methods

  • The authors manually create 200 targeted adversarial tasks in VWA-Adv on top of VisualWebArena, each with an original task, a trigger image or text, a targeted adversarial goal with evaluation script, and an initial state. The threat model assumes limited attacker access to only their own content: text access allows one trigger text, while image access allows an L∞ perturbation of ε = 16/256 on a single image.
  • The ARE framework models the agent as a directed graph where nodes are components and edges carry intermediate outputs; edge weight λ(e) is the expected adversarial influence AdvIn(c), defined as the tightest upper bound on expected attack success if that edge value is used and no downstream component is attacked.
  • Attacks include black-box prompt injection for text access, white-box PGD on a captioner for image access, and a black-box CLIP attack optimizing perturbations against an ensemble of CLIP encoders (ViT-B/32, ViT-B/16, ViT-L/14, ViT-L/14@336px) with negative text, optimized at 180px. Agents evaluated include base, captioner-augmented, reflexion, and tree search agents using GPT-4V, GPT-4o, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Pro, decoded at temperature 0.

Limitations

  • The paper states that its attack baselines are well-engineered versions of existing attacks and only serve as lower bounds of risks; it evaluates on a fixed set of web environments, so performance in more diverse settings such as operating systems remains to be seen; and it considers only base, reflexion, and tree search agents, while new agent algorithms need careful robustness tracking.
  • The text also makes evident that reflexion experiments set the maximum number of attempts to 2 and use the GPT-4o + captioner setting to remain within a reasonable API budget, and that the CLIP generalization analysis uses a synthetic task with four images on a blank background rather than full real screenshots.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.12814

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 4 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    When the policy model remains uncompromised but the value function is attacked, we observe an ASR of 8% in Figure 6(B), solely caused by the value function.

    “In this scenario, we observe an ASR of 8% in Figure 6(B), solely caused by the value function.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The reflexion agent suffers from a 20% relative increase in ASR compared to the base agent if the evaluator and the policy model are jointly attacked.

    “the reflexion agent suffers from a 20% relative increase in ASR compared to the base agent if the evaluator and the policy model are jointly attacked.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A more aggressive prompt asking the model to immediately output a stop action when it observes inconsistencies or adversarial instructions still fails to improve robustness.

    “We then try a more aggressive prompt by asking the model to immediately output a stop action when it observes inconsistencies or adversarial instructions.However, Figure 7 (2nd bar) shows that this still fails to improve robustness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    If both the value function and the policy model are both attacked, an attacked value function increases the ASR from 31% to 38%.

    “Figure 6(D) shows that an attacked value function increases the ASR from 31% to 38%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The captioner attack still achieves a 31% ASR.

    “Figure 4(B) shows that the captioner attack still achieves a 31% ASR.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Figure 4(D) shows an ASR of 10%, suggesting the difficulty of this generalization.

    “Figure 4(D) shows an ASR of 10%, suggesting the difficulty of this generalization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    All agents considered, including latest agents using black-box frontier LMs (e.g., GPT-4o) and those performing reflection and tree search, can be successfully hijacked to execute targeted adversarial goals with success rate up to 67%.

    “We find that we can successfully break latest agents that use black-box frontier LMs, including those that perform reflection and tree search.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The attacked evaluator rejects some valid actions and generates adversarial reflections (9% ASR on the evaluator to policy model edge).

    “The attacked evaluator rejects some valid actions and generates adversarial reflections (9% ASR on the evaluator to policy model edge).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The reflexion agent with an uncompromised evaluator is more robust than the base agent-the ASR decreases from 31% to 25%.

    “Overall, the reflexion agent with an uncompromised evaluator is more robust than the base agentthe ASR decreases from 31% to 25% (Figure 5(A) and (C)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    With imperceptible perturbations of magnitude 16/256 to a single image (less than 5% of total web page pixels), an attacker can hijack these agents to execute targeted adversarial goals with success rates up to 67%.

    “With imperceptible perturbations to a single image (less than 5% of total web page pixels), an attacker can hijack these agents to execute targeted adversarial goals with success rates up to 67%.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · plain
      “they add imperceptible perturbations of magnitude 16/256 pixels to just their own product image, which takes less than 5% of the web page pixels input to the agent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The attacker cannot manipulate the user goal or the agent (e.g., prompts, model parameters) directly.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The attacker can only access a limited part of the environment (the untrusted part), and cannot modify the trusted part.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The attacker is a legitimate user of the platform (e.g., a seller or post owner) with limited capabilities to manipulate the environment (e.g., only their own content).
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    An explicit consistency check that passes each image on the screenshot separately to the LM, asks it to generate a caption, and overrides the text if there is inconsistency effectively reduces the ASR of captioner attacks to near-zero.

    “Figure 7 (3rd bar) shows that it effectively reduces the ASR of captioner attacks to near-zero.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The value function blocks the 31% ASR of policy model to the final 26% ASR, showing that the tree search agent with an uncompromised value function is more robust than the base agent.

    “In Figure 6(C), the value function blocks the 31% ASR of policy model to the final 26% ASR, showing that the tree search agent with an uncompromised value function is more robust than the base agent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both the negative text and the ensemble of CLIP models are crucial for the CLIP attack.

    “We see that both the negative text and the ensemble of CLIP models are crucial for the attack.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We implement some natural baseline defenses based on safety prompting and consistency checks and find that they offer limited gains against attacks.

    “We also implement some natural baseline defenses based on safety prompting and consistency checks and find that they offer limited gains against attacks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When the policy model incorporates these adversarial reflections, it may subsequently take adversarial actions, leading to an ASR of 8%.

    “When the policy model incorporates these adversarial reflections, it may subsequently take adversarial actions, leading to an ASR of 8%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    We propose the Agent Robustness Evaluation (ARE) framework.

    “we propose the Agent Robustness Evaluation (ARE) framework”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We successfully hijack the agent by attacking each of the captioner, policy model, evaluator, or value function components in isolation.

    “we successfully hijack the agent by attacking each of the captioner, policy model, evaluator, or value function components in isolation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Higher optimization resolution implies a larger search space of perturbations, leading to overfitting to the CLIP models.

    “our explanation is that higher optimization resolution implies a larger search space of perturbations, leading to overfitting to the CLIP models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study adopts the execution-based evaluation protocol from Koh et al. (2024a).

    “We adopt the execution-based evaluation protocol from Koh et al. (2024a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Koh et al. (2024a)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    As these agents take on more complex tasks with real-world impact, the risks could be substantial.

    “As these agents take on more complex tasks with real-world impact, the risks could be substantial.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The prompt injection attack, captioner attack, and CLIP attack are effective at illusioning agents and misdirecting their goals using adversarial perturbations to a single trigger image.

    “The prompt injection attack, captioner attack, and CLIP attack are effective at illusioning agents and misdirecting their goals using adversarial perturbations to a single trigger image.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The paraphrase defense is better than system prompts but still does not quite work.

    “This defense is better than system prompts but still does not quite work.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    New components also open up new vulnerabilities and harm robustness in the worse case.

    “new components also open up new vulnerabilities and harm robustness in the worse case.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Adding a new component to an agent can either improve or harm robustness.

    “Adding a new component to an agent can either improve or harm robustness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The ARE framework allows evaluating the robustness of each individual component and tracking how adversarial robustness propagates through the system.

    “Our ARE framework allows us to evaluate the robustness of each individual component and also track how the adversarial robustness propagates through the system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study uses evaluation primitives from Koh et al. (2024a), including exact match, fuzzy match, must include, and url match.

    “We use the evaluation primitives from Koh et al. (2024a), including exact match, fuzzy match, “must include”, and url match.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Koh et al. (2024a)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    An attacker can attack a new component, introducing an edge of weight 1 that could increase λ.

    “However, an attacker can also attack this new component (introducing an edge of weight 1) that could increase λ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    The reported attack success rates only serve as the lower bound of risks.

    “attack success, they only serve as the lower bound of risks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    If a new component B only receives input from the trusted environment, B would lower λ.

    “If B only receives input (if any) from the trusted environment, B would lower λ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To reduce randomness, the LMs were decoded with temperature 0.

    “To reduce randomness, we decode from each LM with temperature 0.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The self-consistency check component can also be attacked, leading to an outgoing edge weight of 0.38 (reused from Figure 4).

    “Hence, this component can also be attacked, leading to an outgoing edge weight of 0.38 (reused from Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The performance of these attacks in more diverse settings, such as operating systems, remains to be seen.

    “the performance of these attacks in more diverse settings, such as operating systems remains to be seen.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Current agent systems have a serious vulnerability that requires urgent attention before deploying them in the real world.

    “This shows a serious vulnerability in current agent systems requiring urgent attention before deploying them in the real world.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The attack baselines are well engineered versions of existing attacks, with necessary modifications to the agent setting.

    “First, our attack baselines are well engineered versions of existing attacks, with necessary modifications to the agent setting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
29 of 29
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The attacker cannot manipulate the user goal or the agent (e.g., prompts, model parameters) directly.

    “we assume that the attacker cannot manipulate the user goal or the agent (e.g., prompts, model parameters) directly.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The attacker can only access a limited part of the environment (the untrusted part), and cannot modify the trusted part.

    “Instead, they can only access a limited part of the environment.”
    “The environment can then be split into two parts: a trusted part and an untrusted part, and the attacker can only modify the untrusted part.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The environment can be split into a trusted part and an untrusted part.

    “The environment can then be split into two parts: a trusted part and an untrusted part, and the attacker can only modify the untrusted part.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The environment is deterministic, so AdvIn(c) is either 0 or 1.

    “We assume a deterministic environment, meaning that AdvIn(c) is either 0 or 1, while it can be generalized to [0, 1] in stochastic environments.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The attacker is a legitimate user of the platform (e.g., a seller or post owner) with limited capabilities to manipulate the environment (e.g., only their own content).

    “We focus on a realistic threat: the attacker is a legitimate user (but different from the user of the agent) of the platform (e.g., a seller or post owner) with limited capabilities to manipulate the environment (e.g., only their own content).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Setting the initial state to where the trigger image/text is picked guarantees the agent's exposure to the trigger.

    “We set the initial state to where the trigger image/text is picked, rather than the homepage.Given the difference between agents (and randomness of the same agent), this guarantee the agent's exposure to the trigger (ASR would make no sense if the trigger is not even seen).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    GPT-4o is trained with instruction hierarchy, a training method that defends the LM from being distracted by untrusted inputs.

    “Our best guess is that GPT-4o is trained with instruction hierarchy (Wallace et al., 2024;Chen et al., 2024b), a training method that defends the LM from being distracted by untrusted inputs.”
7 of 7

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, and et al. RT-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. ArXiv, 2023.
  2. Huanran Chen, Yichi Zhang, Yinpeng Dong, and Jun Zhu. Rethinking model ensemble in transfer- based adversarial attacks. ICLR, 2024a.
  3. Xiaohan Fu, Zihan Wang, Shuheng Li, Rajesh K. Gupta, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Taylor Berg- Kirkpatrick, and Earlence Fernandes. Misusing tools in large language models with visual adversarial examples. ArXiv, 2023.
  4. Gemini Team Google. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. ArXiv, 2023.
  5. Xiangming Gu, Xiaosen Zheng, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Qian Liu, Ye Wang, Jing Jiang, and Min Lin. Agent smith: A single image can jailbreak one million multimodal llm agents exponentially fast. ICML, 2024.
  6. Keegan Hines, Gary Lopez, Matthew Hall, Federico Zarfati, Yonatan Zunger, and Emre Kiciman. Defending against indirect prompt injection attacks with spotlighting. ArXiv, 2024.
  7. Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, and et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. CoRL, 2022.
  8. Brian Ichter, Anthony Brohan, Yevgen Chebotar, Chelsea Finn, Karol Hausman, and et al. Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. CoRL, 2022.
  9. Neel Jain, Avi Schwarzschild, Yuxin Wen, Gowthami Somepalli, John Kirchenbauer, Ping yeh Chiang, Micah Goldblum, Aniruddha Saha, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Baseline defenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models. ArXiv, 2023.
  10. Erik Jones, Anca D. Dragan, Aditi Raghunathan, and Jacob Steinhardt. Automatically auditing large language models via discrete optimization. ICML, 2023.
  11. Aounon Kumar and Himabindu Lakkaraju. Manipulating large language models to increase product visibility. ArXiv, 2024.
  12. Alexey Kurakin, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Samy Bengio. Adversarial examples in the physical world. ArXiv, 2016.
  13. Alexey Kurakin, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Samy Bengio. Adversarial machine learning at scale. In ICLR, 2017.
  14. Yifan Li, Hangyu Guo, Kun Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Images are Achilles' heel of alignment: Exploiting visual vulnerabilities for jailbreaking multimodal large language models. ArXiv, 2024.
  15. Zeyi Liao, Lingbo Mo, Chejian Xu, Mintong Kang, Jiawei Zhang, Chaowei Xiao, Yuan Tian, Bo Li, and Huan Sun. EIA: Environmental injection attack on generalist web agents for privacy leakage. ArXiv, 2024.
  16. Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Yuxian Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kai Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xiang Deng, Aohan Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chenhui Zhang, Shengqi Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, Huan Sun, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. AgentBench: Evaluating llms as agents. ArXiv, 2023a.
  17. Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. AutoDAN: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models. ArXiv, 2023b.
  18. Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Tianwei Zhang, Yepang Liu, Haoyu Wang, Yanhong Zheng, and Yang Liu. Prompt injection attack against llm-integrated applications. ArXiv, 2023c.
  19. Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. ICLR, 2018a.
  20. Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. ICLR, 2018b.
  21. Lingbo Mo, Zeyi Liao, Boyuan Zheng, Yu Su, Chaowei Xiao, and Huan Sun. A trembling house of cards? mapping adversarial attacks against language agents. ArXiv, 2024.
  22. Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Ouyang Long, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback. ArXiv, 2021.
  23. Fredrik Nestaas, Edoardo Debenedetti, and Florian Simon Tramèr. Adversarial search engine optimization for large language models. ArXiv, 2024.
  24. Richard Ngo, Lawrence Chan, and Sören Mindermann. The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective. ICLR, 2024.
  25. Jiayi Pan, Yichi Zhang, Nicholas Tomlin, Yifei Zhou, Sergey Levine, and Alane Suhr. Autonomous evaluation and refinement of digital agents. ArXiv, 2024.
  26. Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. NeurIPS, 2024.
  27. Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. Intriguing properties of neural networks. ArXiv, 2013.
  28. Eric Wallace, Kai Xiao, Reimar H. Leike, Lilian Weng, Johannes Heidecke, and Alex Beutel. The instruction hierarchy: Training llms to prioritize privileged instructions. ArXiv, 2024.
  29. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. ICLR, 2023b.
  30. Boyuan Zheng, Boyu Gou, Jihyung Kil, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. GPT-4V(ision) is a generalist web agent, if grounded. ArXiv, 2024.
  31. Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, J Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. ArXiv, 2023.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wu, C. H., Shah, R., Koh, J. Y., Salakhutdinov, R., Fried, D., & Raghunathan, A.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399838044
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Cisco Systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
adversarial robustness, multimodal language models, autonomous agents, web agents, targeted attacks, image perturbation, AI safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-29.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-29.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review