❌

Normal view

CoopGuard: Stateful Cooperative Agents Safeguarding LLMs Against Evolving Multi-Round Attacks

By: Siyuan Li Β· Zehao Liu Β· Xi Lin Β· Qinghua Mao Β· Yuliang Chen Β· Haoyu Li Β· Jun Wu Β· Jianhua Li Β· Xiu Su
7 April 2026 at 12:00
arXiv:2604.04060v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in complex applications, their vulnerability to adversarial attacks raises urgent safety concerns, especially those evolving over multi-round interactions. Existing defenses are largely reactive and struggle to adapt as adversaries refine strategies across rounds. In this work, we propose CoopGuard , a stateful multi-round LLM defense framework based on cooperative agents that maintains and updates an internal defense state to counter evolving attacks. It employs three specialized agents (Deferring Agent, Tempting Agent, and Forensic Agent) for complementary round-level strategies, coordinated by System Agent, which conditions decisions on the evolving defense state (interaction history) and orchestrates agents over time. To evaluate evolving threats, we introduce the EMRA benchmark with 5,200 adversarial samples across 8 attack types, simulating progressively LLM multi-round attacks. Experiments show that CoopGuard reduces attack success rate by 78.9% over state-of-the-art defenses, while improving deceptive rate by 186% and reducing attack efficiency by 167.9%, offering a more comprehensive assessment of multi-round defense. These results demonstrate that CoopGuard provides robust protection for LLMs in multi-round adversarial scenarios.

Embedding Enhancement via Fine-Tuned Language Models for Learner-Item Cognitive Modeling

arXiv:2604.04088v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Learner-item cognitive modeling plays a central role in the web-based online intelligent education system by enabling cognitive diagnosis (CD) across diverse online educational scenarios. Although ID embedding remains the mainstream approach in cognitive modeling due to its effectiveness and flexibility, recent advances in language models (LMs) have introduced new possibilities for incorporating rich semantic representations to enhance CD performance. This highlights the need for a comprehensive analysis of how LMs enhance embeddings through semantic integration across mainstream CD tasks. This paper identifies two key challenges in fully leveraging LMs in existing work: Misalignment between the training objectives of LMs and CD models creates a distribution gap in feature spaces; A unified framework is essential for integrating textual embeddings across varied CD tasks while preserving the strengths of existing cognitive modeling paradigms to ensure the robustness of embedding enhancement. To address these challenges, this paper introduces EduEmbed, a unified embedding enhancement framework that leverages fine-tuned LMs to enrich learner-item cognitive modeling across diverse CD tasks. EduEmbed operates in two stages. In the first stage, we fine-tune LMs based on role-specific representations and an interaction diagnoser to bridge the semantic gap of CD models. In the second stage, we employ a textual adapter to extract task-relevant semantics and integrate them with existing modeling paradigms to improve generalization. We evaluate the proposed framework on four CD tasks and computerized adaptive testing (CAT) task, achieving robust performance. Further analysis reveals the impact of semantic information across diverse tasks, offering key insights for future research on the application of LMs in CD for online intelligent education systems.

Justified or Just Convincing? Error Verifiability as a Dimension of LLM Quality

arXiv:2604.04418v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose $v_{\text{bal}}$, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.
❌