arXiv subjects

Yining She

Publications and source records attributed to Yining She.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

FASR: Automated Identification of Unsafe Control Actions in STPA

The System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) is a well-established hazard analysis technique that has been applied to a wide range of safety-critical systems. Despite its popularity, there is relatively little automation support for STPA, and most of its steps are carried out manually by a human analyst, which can be time consuming and error prone. This paper investigates the potential use of model-based engineering and formal methods to assist human analysts in efficiently and accurately carrying out STPA. The proposed tool, called FASR (Formalizing and Automating STPA with Robustness), enables automated, complete identification of unsafe control actions (UCAs), leveraging recent advances in robustness analysis to identify UCAs as undesirable deviations in the controller's actions. The use of the tool is demonstrated on a case study involving a Braking System Control Unit (BSCU) in an avionics system. As a preliminary exploration of the potential benefits and limitations of the tool, the paper reports on a user study involving nine participants with varying backgrounds in STPA, model-based engineering, and formal methods; the study found that most participants considered the tool a useful aid in identifying UCAs, while suggesting improvements that would make a tool such as FASR usable and applicable to a wider range of systems and analysts.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Safeguarding LLM Agents from Misalignment through Provenance Analysis

As LLM agents gain increasing access to powerful tools, ensuring that their actions align with the user's intent becomes critical. When an agent's proposed action deviates from that intent---a phenomenon called misalignment---it may cause harm that is difficult to undo. Existing runtime guardrails rely on an LLM-as-a-judge paradigm that lacks a systematic framework for reasoning about alignment, often producing inconsistent or difficult-to-audit judgments. Motivated by provenance analysis, we propose a conceptual framework that formalizes misalignment detection as determining whether a proposed tool call is supported by traceable evidence in the agent's context. Based on this framework, we build ProvenanceGuard, a multi-stage pipeline that analyzes the agent's action for three types of misalignment before its execution and only allows aligned actions. We evaluated ProvenanceGuard on AgentSafetyBench and WorkBench, across 11 backbone LLMs. Compared to the LLM-as-a-judge baseline, ProvenanceGuard reduces error rate on misaligned traces from 44.3% to 2.1% on Agent-SafetyBench and from 32.4% to 18.7% on WorkBench, while reducing interventions on task-successful traces from 31.2% to 13.0% and introducing no statistically significant increase in unnecessary interventions on aligned traces. These results demonstrate that structured, provenance-based reasoning provides an effective and practical foundation for safeguarding LLM agents from misalignment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Don't Make Models Guess Security and Safety: Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific AI Agents

There is increasing interest in integrating AI agents that invoke tools into domain-specific commercial software, where unintended tool calls can cause serious security and safety incidents. This has drawn growing research attention, and many agent security and safety benchmarks have emerged. They implicitly shape how the community approaches security and safety. Yet existing work exhibits a blind spot: it emphasizes training-based methods and neural guardrails, which reduce the likelihood of insecure or unsafe actions but cannot guarantee their prevention. It generally overlooks opportunities for deductive, symbolic guardrails grounded in standard software engineering practices, which can provide guarantees for some security and safety requirements. Our study has three parts: (1) a systematic review of 80 agent security and safety benchmarks finding that that 85\% of benchmarks do not state verifiable requirements (61\% provide none, and 24\% give only high-level goals); (2) an applicability analysis of which security and safety requirements symbolic guardrails can and cannot enforce on $\tau^2$-Bench, CAR-bench, and MedAgentBench, finding that 74\% of requirements are symbolically enforceable and 95\% of these need only simple, low-cost checks; and (3) an empirical evaluation of symbolic guardrails on the same three benchmarks, finding that symbolic guardrails improve security and safety without sacrificing utility, and often improve it. Our work draws attention to the potential for symbolic guardrails for AI agents, suggesting them as an overlooked but practical path toward deploying domain-specific AI agents in risk-averse commercial software. We release all codes and artifacts at https://github.com/hyn0027/agent-symbolic-guardrails.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

RAG Makes Guardrails Unsafe? Investigating Robustness of Guardrails under RAG-style Contexts

With the increasing adoption of large language models (LLMs), ensuring the safety of LLM systems has become a pressing concern. External LLM-based guardrail models have emerged as a popular solution to screen unsafe inputs and outputs, but they are themselves fine-tuned or prompt-engineered LLMs that are vulnerable to data distribution shifts. In this paper, taking Retrieval Augmentation Generation (RAG) as a case study, we investigated how robust LLM-based guardrails are against additional information embedded in the context. Through a systematic evaluation of 3 Llama Guards and 2 GPT-oss models, we confirmed that inserting benign documents into the guardrail context alters the judgments of input and output guardrails in around 11% and 8% of cases, making them unreliable. We separately analyzed the effect of each component in the augmented context: retrieved documents, user query, and LLM-generated response. The two mitigation methods we tested only bring minor improvements. These results expose a context-robustness gap in current guardrails and motivate training and evaluation protocols that are robust to retrieval and query composition.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

FairSense: Long-Term Fairness Analysis of ML-Enabled Systems

Algorithmic fairness of machine learning (ML) models has raised significant concern in the recent years. Many testing, verification, and bias mitigation techniques have been proposed to identify and reduce fairness issues in ML models. The existing methods are model-centric and designed to detect fairness issues under static settings. However, many ML-enabled systems operate in a dynamic environment where the predictive decisions made by the system impact the environment, which in turn affects future decision-making. Such a self-reinforcing feedback loop can cause fairness violations in the long term, even if the immediate outcomes are fair. In this paper, we propose a simulation-based framework called FairSense to detect and analyze long-term unfairness in ML-enabled systems. Given a fairness requirement, FairSense performs Monte-Carlo simulation to enumerate evolution traces for each system configuration. Then, FairSense performs sensitivity analysis on the space of possible configurations to understand the impact of design options and environmental factors on the long-term fairness of the system. We demonstrate FairSense's potential utility through three real-world case studies: Loan lending, opioids risk scoring, and predictive policing.

cs.LG↗