Multi-Agent Framework for Threat Mitigation and Resilience in AI-Based Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) underpins foundation models in finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, making them targets for data poisoning, model extraction, prompt injection, automated jailbreaking, and preference-guided black-box attacks that exploit model comparisons. Larger models can be more vulnerable to introspection-driven jailbreaks and cross-modal manipulation. Traditional cybersecurity lacks ML-specific threat modeling for foundation, multimodal, and RAG systems. Objective: Characterize ML security risks by identifying dominant TTPs, vulnerabilities, and targeted lifecycle stages. Methods: We extract 93 threats from MITRE ATLAS (26), AI Incident Database (12), and literature (55), and analyze 854 GitHub/Python repositories. A multi-agent RAG system (ChatGPT-4o, temp 0.4) mines 300+ articles to build an ontology-driven threat graph linking TTPs, vulnerabilities, and stages. Results: We identify unreported threats including commercial LLM API model stealing, parameter memorization leakage, and preference-guided text-only jailbreaks. Dominant TTPs include MASTERKEY-style jailbreaking, federated poisoning, diffusion backdoors, and preference optimization leakage, mainly impacting pre-training and inference. Graph analysis reveals dense vulnerability clusters in libraries with poor patch propagation. Conclusion: Adaptive, ML-specific security frameworks, combining dependency hygiene, threat intelligence, and monitoring, are essential to mitigate supply-chain and inference risks across the ML lifecycle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".