Jehyeok Yeon

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in agentic systems where they map user intents to relevant external tools to fulfill a task. A critical step in this process is tool selection, where a retriever first surfaces candidate tools from a larger pool, after which the LLM selects the most appropriate one. This pipeline presents an underexplored attack surface where errors in selection can lead to severe outcomes like unauthorized data access or denial of service, all without modifying the agent's model or code. While existing evaluations measure task performance in benign settings, they overlook the specific vulnerabilities of the tool selection mechanism under adversarial conditions. To address this gap, we introduce ToolCert, the first statistical framework that formally certifies tool selection robustness. ToolCert models tool selection as a Bernoulli success process and evaluates it against a strong, adaptive attacker who introduces adversarial tools with misleading metadata, and are iteratively refined based on the agent's previous choices. By sampling these adversarial interactions, ToolCert produces a high-confidence lower bound on accuracy, formally quantifying the agent's worst-case performance. Our evaluation with ToolCert uncovers the severe fragility: under attacks injecting deceptive tools or saturating retrieval, the certified accuracy bound drops near zero, an average performance drop of over 60% compared to non-adversarial settings. For attacks targeting the retrieval and selection stages, the certified accuracy bound plummets to less than 20% after just a single round of adversarial adaptation. ToolCert thus reveals previously unexamined security threats inherent to tool selection and provides a principled method to quantify an agent's robustness to such threats, a necessary step for the safe deployment of agentic systems.

Large language models (LLMs) face critical safety challenges, as they can be manipulated to generate harmful content through adversarial prompts and jailbreak attacks. Many defenses are typically either black-box guardrails that filter outputs, or internals-based methods that steer hidden activations by operationalizing safety as a single latent feature or dimension. While effective for simple concepts, this assumption is limiting, as recent evidence shows that abstract concepts such as refusal and temporality are distributed across multiple features rather than isolated in one. To address this limitation, we introduce Graph-Regularized Sparse Autoencoders (GSAEs), which extends SAEs with a Laplacian smoothness penalty on the neuron co-activation graph. Unlike standard SAEs that assign each concept to a single latent feature, GSAEs recover smooth, distributed safety representations as coherent patterns spanning multiple features. We empirically demonstrate that GSAE enables effective runtime safety steering, assembling features into a weighted set of safety-relevant directions and controlling them with a two-stage gating mechanism that activates interventions only when harmful prompts or continuations are detected during generation. This approach enforces refusals adaptively while preserving utility on benign queries. Across safety and QA benchmarks, GSAE steering achieves an average 82% selective refusal rate, substantially outperforming standard SAE steering (42%), while maintaining strong task accuracy (70% on TriviaQA, 65% on TruthfulQA, 74% on GSM8K). Robustness experiments further show generalization across LLaMA-3, Mistral, Qwen, and Phi families and resilience against jailbreak attacks (GCG, AutoDAN), consistently maintaining >= 90% refusal of harmful content.