Fasheng Miao
Publications
aCAPTCHA: Verifying That an Entity Is a Capable Agent via Asymmetric Hardness
As autonomous AI agents increasingly populate the Internet, a novel security challenge arises: "Is this entity an AI agent?" It is a new entity-type verification problem with no established solution. We formalize the problem through a three-class entity taxonomy (Human, Script, Agent) based on a verifiable agentic capability vector <x, r, s> (action, reasoning, and memory). A timing threshold t exploits the asymmetric hardness between human cognition and AI processing to separate the three classes. We define the Agentic Capability Verification Problem (ACVP) through three necessity primitives, each testing one capability dimension. Building on this foundation, we introduce aCAPTCHA (Agent CAPTCHA), a time-constrained security game for agent admission whose security rests on ACVP hardness under t. We instantiate aCAPTCHA through time-bounded natural-language understanding as a multi-round HTTP verification protocol, and evaluate it with preliminary agent trials that validate the protocol's soundness and completeness. aCAPTCHA provides a composable, infrastructure-free admission gate for any service where entity-type verification is required.
GhostCite: A Large-Scale Analysis of Citation Validity in the Age of Large Language Models
Citations provide the basis for trusting scientific claims; when they are invalid or fabricated, this trust collapses. With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), this risk has intensified: LLMs are increasingly used for academic writing, yet their tendency to fabricate citations (``ghost citations'') poses a systemic threat to citation validity. To quantify this threat and inform mitigation, we develop CiteVerifier, an open-source framework for large-scale citation verification, and conduct the first comprehensive study of citation validity in the LLM era through three experiments built on it. We benchmark 13 state-of-the-art LLMs on citation generation across 40 research domains, finding that all models hallucinate citations at rates from 14.23\% to 94.93\%, with significant variation across research domains. Moreover, we analyze 2.2 million citations from 56,381 papers published at top-tier AI/ML and Security venues (2020--2025), confirming that 1.07\% of papers contain invalid or fabricated citations (604 papers), with an 80.9\% increase in 2025 alone. Furthermore, we survey 97 researchers and analyze 94 valid responses after removing 3 conflicting samples, revealing a critical ``verification gap'': 41.5\% of researchers copy-paste BibTeX without checking and 44.4\% choose no-action responses when encountering suspicious references; meanwhile, 76.7\% of reviewers do not thoroughly check references and 80.0\% never suspect fake citations. Our findings reveal an accelerating crisis where unreliable AI tools, combined with inadequate human verification by researchers and insufficient peer review scrutiny, enable fabricated citations to contaminate the scientific record. We propose interventions for researchers, venues, and tool developers to protect citation integrity.