Debate to Deceive: Poisoning LLM's Fact-Checking via Game-Theoretic Multi-Agent Debate
arXiv:2611.08756v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge attacks on Large Language Models, such as manipulating fact-checking judgments, pose significant risks to AI reliability. Existing approaches -- adversarial suffix/template injection and single-agent self-reflection -- lack robustness across diverse defenses and are prone to confirmation bias and costly trial-and-error, respectively. We propose Debate-to-Deceive (D2D), a multi-agent debate framework grounded in human debate structure and
阅读原始来源
来源记录
研究分析
研究主张
论文标识：2611.08756。 来源描述：arXiv:2611.08756v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge attacks on Large Language Models, such as manipulating fact-checking judgments, pose significant risks to AI reliability. Existing approaches -- adversarial suffix/template injection and single-agent self-reflection -- lack robustness across diverse defenses and are prone to confirmation bias and costly trial-and-error, respectively. We propose Debate-to-Deceive (D2D), a multi-agent debate framework grounded in human debate structure and
评测与比较记录
可供比较的近期同类记录：“腾讯混元跻身最强开源模型！一手实测Hy4：搭配WorkBuddy，多模态Agent交付力拉满” (量子位, 2026年11月9日)；“Flex-RSI: Benchmarking Recursive Self-Improvement of Frontier Agents” (arXiv, 2026年11月9日)。主题相近仅用于导航，未核验其是否属于同一需求或独立证据。
结论适用范围
结论只能在所述模型版本、任务、数据与推理预算内解释。社区票数、下载量或榜单位置不能证明另一工作流中的可靠性。
有效性与复现缺口
需核对样本选择、基线配置、不确定性、数据污染风险、负面结果以及代码或权重可获取性；此处没有本站复现实验记录。
复核路线
阅读论文或模型卡及评测附录，针对明确基线复现一个有限结论，再测试代表性用户任务并记录结论失效的场景。