Abstract:LLM-based ranking systems are vulnerable to Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) attacks, where adversaries inject semantic signals into product descriptions to artificially boost rankings. We propose SCI-Defense, a three-component defense framework combining Perplexity detection (PPL), Semantic Integrity Scoring (SIS), and Inter-Candidate Detection (ICD). SIS evaluates four manipulation dimensions: Authority Attribution (AA), Narrative Purposiveness (NP), Comparative Claims (CA), and Temporal Claims (TC). Evaluated on 600 Amazon product descriptions across 6 categories, SCI-Defense achieves Precision=1.000 and FPR=0.000, with Recall of 1.000, 0.952, and 0.830 against String, Reasoning, and Review attacks respectively. On 600 MS MARCO web passages, String attacks are blocked with perfect recall while Review attacks yield near-zero recall, as web passages lack the persuasion-oriented signals that SIS targets in product descriptions. We demonstrate that existing defenses -- PPL-only filters, SafetyClf content classifiers, and paraphrasing -- achieve zero recall against semantic manipulation attacks. We further demonstrate new attacks such as Specification Amplification and Use-Case Saturation can expose semantic relevance manipulation as a structural defense blind spot that suggests directions for future research.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) can generate chains of thought (CoTs) that are not always causally responsible for their final outputs. When such a mismatch occurs, the CoT no longer faithfully reflects the actual reasons (i.e., decision-critical factors) driving the model's behavior, leading to the reduced CoT monitorability problem. However, a comprehensive and fully open-source benchmark for thoroughly evaluating CoT monitorability remains lacking. To address this gap, we propose MonitorBench, a systematic benchmark for evaluating CoT monitorability in LLMs. MonitorBench provides: (1) a diverse set of 1,514 test instances with carefully designed decision-critical factors across 19 tasks spanning 7 categories to characterize \textit{when} CoTs can be used to monitor the factors driving LLM behavior; and (2) two stress-test settings to quantify \textit{the extent to which} CoT monitorability can be degraded. Extensive experiments across multiple popular LLMs with varying capabilities show that CoT monitorability is higher when the decision-critical factors shape the intermediate reasoning process without merely influencing the final answer. More capable LLMs tend to exhibit lower monitorability. And all evaluated LLMs can intentionally reduce monitorability under stress-tests, with monitorability dropping by up to 30\% in some tasks that do not require structural reasoning over the decision-critical factors. Overall, MonitorBench provides a basis for further research on evaluating future LLMs, studying advanced stress-test monitorability techniques, and developing new monitoring approaches. The code is available at https://github.com/ASTRAL-Group/MonitorBench.