PreprintCited by 5Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic Modeling

StealthRank: LLM Ranking Manipulation via Stealthy Prompt Optimization

Open access
Tang, Yiming, Fan, Yi, Yu, Chenxiao, Yang, Tiankai, Zhao, Yue, Hu, Xiyang·2025·arXiv

Abstract

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into information retrieval systems introduces new attack surfaces, particularly for adversarial ranking manipulations. We present $\textbf{StealthRank}$, a novel adversarial attack method that manipulates LLM-driven ranking systems while maintaining textual fluency and stealth. Unlike existing methods that often introduce detectable anomalies, StealthRank employs an energy-based optimization framework combined with Langevin dynamics to generate StealthRank Prompts (SRPs)-adversarial text sequences embedded within item or document descriptions that subtly yet effectively influence LLM ranking mechanisms. We evaluate StealthRank across multiple LLMs, demonstrating its ability to covertly boost the ranking of target items while avoiding explicit manipulation traces. Our results show that StealthRank consistently outperforms state-of-the-art adversarial ranking baselines in both effectiveness and stealth, highlighting critical vulnerabilities in LLM-driven ranking systems. Our code is publicly available at $\href{https://github.com/Tangyiming205069/controllable-seo}{here}$.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.05804

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing GEO manipulation methods are evaluated on disparate datasets, metrics, and experimental setups, preventing direct comparison of their relative strength and detectability.

    “Research on generative engine optimization (GEO) has produced many manipulation methods, but each is evaluated on its own dataset with its own metrics, so their relative strength and detectability stay unclear.”

    From GEO-Bench: Benchmarking Ranking Manipulation in Generative Engine Optimization (2026) · cites this paper as Tang et al., 2025

    Section 4.1 (page unavailable) says StealthRank benchmarks against STS and TAP using a dataset drawn from earlier work. Section 4.2 directly compares their ranking performance and perplexity, while Section 4.4 compares StealthRank and STS on human-rated manipulation detectability. The paper therefore does not support the claim that separate datasets and metrics prevent direct comparison of these methods. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tang et al. proposed StealthRank, jointly optimizing for rank promotion, fluency, and keyword avoidance.

    “Tang et al. (2025) proposed StealthRank, jointly optimizing for rank promotion, fluency, and keyword avoidance.”

    From GEO-Bench: Benchmarking Ranking Manipulation in Generative Engine Optimization (2026) · cites this paper as Tang et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Gabriel Alon and Michael Kamfonas. 2023. Detect- ing language model attacks with perplexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14132. · arXiv
  2. Xingang Guo, Fangxu Yu, Huan Zhang, Lianhui Qin, and Bin Hu. 2024. Cold-attack: Jailbreaking llms with stealthiness and controllability. Preprint, arXiv:2402.08679. · arXiv
  3. Xiyang Hu. 2025. Dynamics of adversarial attacks on large language model-based search engines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00745. · arXiv
  4. Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Men- sch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guil- laume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. 2023. Mistral 7b. Preprint, arXiv:2310.06825. · arXiv
  5. Aounon Kumar and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2024. Ma- nipulating large language models to increase product visibility. Preprint, arXiv:2404.07981. · arXiv
  6. Sizhe Liu, Yizhou Lu, Siyu Chen, Xiyang Hu, Jieyu Zhao, Tianfan Fu, and Yue Zhao. 2024a. Drugagent: Automating ai-aided drug discovery programming through llm multi-agent collaboration. Preprint, arXiv:2411.15692. · arXiv
  7. Xiaogeng Liu, Peiran Li, Edward Suh, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, Zhuoqing Mao, Somesh Jha, Patrick McDaniel, Huan Sun, Bo Li, and Chaowei Xiao. 2024b. Autodan-turbo: A lifelong agent for strat- egy self-exploration to jailbreak llms. Preprint, arXiv:2410.05295. · arXiv
  8. Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Zihao Wang, Xiaofeng Wang, Tianwei Zhang, Yepang Liu, Haoyu Wang, Yan Zheng, et al. 2023. Prompt injec- tion attack against llm-integrated applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05499. · arXiv
  9. Lin Lu, Hai Yan, Zenghui Yuan, Jiawen Shi, Wenqi Wei, Pin-Yu Chen, and Pan Zhou. 2024. Autojailbreak: Exploring jailbreak attacks and defenses through a dependency lens. Preprint, arXiv:2406.03805. · arXiv
  10. Fredrik Nestaas, Edoardo Debenedetti, and Florian Tramèr. 2024. Adversarial search engine optimiza- tion for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18382. · arXiv
  11. Liang-bo Ning, Shijie Wang, Wenqi Fan, Qing Li, Xin Xu, Hao Chen, and Feiran Huang. 2024. Cheatagent: Attacking llm-empowered recommender systems via llm agent. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Min- ing, KDD '24, page 2284-2295, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Samuel Pfrommer, Yatong Bai, Tanmay Gautam, and Somayeh Sojoudi. 2024. Ranking manipulation for conversational search engines. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 9523-9552, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Lianhui Qin, Sean Welleck, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Cold decoding: Energy-based constrained text generation with langevin dynamics. Preprint, arXiv:2202.11705. · arXiv
  14. Sofia Eleni Spatharioti, David M. Rothschild, Daniel G. Goldstein, and Jake M. Hofman. 2023. Com- paring traditional and llm-based search for con- sumer choice: A randomized experiment. Preprint, arXiv:2307.03744. · arXiv
  15. Yuan Sui, Mengyu Zhou, Mingjie Zhou, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. 2024. Table meets llm: Can large language models understand structured table data? a benchmark and empirical study. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 645-654.
  16. Zongwei Wang, Min Gao, Junliang Yu, Xinyi Gao, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Shazia Sadiq, and Hongzhi Yin. 2024. Llm-powered text simulation attack against id-free recommender systems. Preprint, arXiv:2409.11690. · arXiv
  17. Chengxing Xie, Canyu Chen, Feiran Jia, Ziyu Ye, Shiyang Lai, Kai Shu, Jindong Gu, Adel Bibi, Ziniu Hu, David Jurgens, James Evans, Philip Torr, Bernard Ghanem, and Guohao Li. 2024. Can large lan- guage model agents simulate human trust behavior? Preprint, arXiv:2402.04559. · arXiv
  18. Haoyi Xiong, Jiang Bian, Yuchen Li, Xuhong Li, Meng- nan Du, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, and Sumi Helal. 2024. When search engine services meet large language models: Visions and challenges. Preprint, arXiv:2407.00128. · arXiv
  19. Tiankai Yang, Yi Nian, Shawn Li, Ruiyao Xu, Yuangang Li, Jiaqi Li, Zhuo Xiao, Xiyang Hu, Ryan Rossi, Kaize Ding, Xia Hu, and Yue Zhao. 2024. Ad-llm: Benchmarking large language models for anomaly detection. Preprint, arXiv:2412.11142. · arXiv
  20. Sibo Yi, Yule Liu, Zhen Sun, Tianshuo Cong, Xinlei He, Jiaxing Song, Ke Xu, and Qi Li. 2024. Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04295. · arXiv
  21. Chenxiao Yu, Jinyi Ye, Yuangang Li, Zhaotian Weng, Zheng Li, Emilio Ferrara, Xiyang Hu, and Yue Zhao. 2025. A large-scale simulation on large lan- guage models for decision-making in political sci- ence. Preprint, arXiv:2412.15291. · arXiv
  22. Jinghao Zhang, Yuting Liu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, Guib- ing Guo, and Liang Wang. 2024. Stealthy attack on large language model based recommendation. Preprint, arXiv:2402.14836. · arXiv
  23. Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. 2023. Univer- sal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. Preprint, arXiv:2307.15043. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, Y., Fan, Y., Yu, C., Yang, T., Zhao, Y., & Hu, X.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4417239913
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
adversarial attacks, large language models, information retrieval, energy-based optimization, Langevin dynamics, adversarial text generation

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.

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