Yifan Ding

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has driven major gains in reasoning, perception, and generation across language and vision, yet whether these advances translate into comparable improvements in safety remains unclear, partly due to fragmented evaluations that focus on isolated modalities or threat models. In this report, we present an integrated safety evaluation of six frontier models--GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, Qwen3-VL, Grok 4.1 Fast, Nano Banana Pro, and Seedream 4.5--assessing each across language, vision-language, and image generation using a unified protocol that combines benchmark, adversarial, multilingual, and compliance evaluations. By aggregating results into safety leaderboards and model profiles, we reveal a highly uneven safety landscape: while GPT-5.2 demonstrates consistently strong and balanced performance, other models exhibit clear trade-offs across benchmark safety, adversarial robustness, multilingual generalization, and regulatory compliance. Despite strong results under standard benchmarks, all models remain highly vulnerable under adversarial testing, with worst-case safety rates dropping below 6%. Text-to-image models show slightly stronger alignment in regulated visual risk categories, yet remain fragile when faced with adversarial or semantically ambiguous prompts. Overall, these findings highlight that safety in frontier models is inherently multidimensional--shaped by modality, language, and evaluation design--underscoring the need for standardized, holistic safety assessments to better reflect real-world risk and guide responsible deployment.

Large language model (LLM) agents execute tasks through multi-step workflows that combine planning, memory, and tool use. While this design enables autonomy, it also expands the attack surface for backdoor threats. Backdoor triggers injected into specific stages of an agent workflow can persist through multiple intermediate states and adversely influence downstream outputs. However, existing studies remain fragmented and typically analyze individual attack vectors in isolation, leaving the cross-stage interaction and propagation of backdoor triggers poorly understood from an agent-centric perspective. To fill this gap, we propose \textbf{BackdoorAgent}, a modular and stage-aware framework that provides a unified, agent-centric view of backdoor threats in LLM agents. BackdoorAgent structures the attack surface into three functional stages of agentic workflows, including \textbf{planning attacks}, \textbf{memory attacks}, and \textbf{tool-use attacks}, and instruments agent execution to enable systematic analysis of trigger activation and propagation across different stages. Building on this framework, we construct a standardized benchmark spanning four representative agent applications: \textbf{Agent QA}, \textbf{Agent Code}, \textbf{Agent Web}, and \textbf{Agent Drive}, covering both language-only and multimodal settings. Our empirical analysis shows that \textit{triggers implanted at a single stage can persist across multiple steps and propagate through intermediate states.} For instance, when using a GPT-based backbone, we observe trigger persistence in 43.58\% of planning attacks, 77.97\% of memory attacks, and 60.28\% of tool-stage attacks, highlighting the vulnerabilities of the agentic workflow itself to backdoor threats. To facilitate reproducibility and future research, our code and benchmark are publicly available at GitHub.

Knowledge poisoning poses a critical threat to Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems by injecting adversarial content into knowledge bases, tricking Large Language Models (LLMs) into producing attacker-controlled outputs grounded in manipulated context. Prior work highlights LLMs' susceptibility to misleading or malicious retrieved content. However, real-world fact-checking scenarios are more challenging, as credible evidence typically dominates the retrieval pool. To investigate this problem, we extend knowledge poisoning to the fact-checking setting, where retrieved context includes authentic supporting or refuting evidence. We propose \textbf{ADMIT} (\textbf{AD}versarial \textbf{M}ulti-\textbf{I}njection \textbf{T}echnique), a few-shot, semantically aligned poisoning attack that flips fact-checking decisions and induces deceptive justifications, all without access to the target LLMs, retrievers, or token-level control. Extensive experiments show that ADMIT transfers effectively across 4 retrievers, 11 LLMs, and 4 cross-domain benchmarks, achieving an average attack success rate (ASR) of 86\% at an extremely low poisoning rate of $0.93 \times 10^{-6}$, and remaining robust even in the presence of strong counter-evidence. Compared with prior state-of-the-art attacks, ADMIT improves ASR by 11.2\% across all settings, exposing significant vulnerabilities in real-world RAG-based fact-checking systems.