Hanna Kim

Minkyoo Song, Jaehan Kim, Myungchul Kang et al.

Graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (Graph RAG) is increasingly deployed to support LLM applications by augmenting user queries with structured knowledge retrieved from a knowledge graph. While Graph RAG improves relational reasoning, it introduces a largely understudied threat: adversaries can reconstruct subgraphs from a target RAG system's knowledge graph, enabling privacy inference and replication of curated knowledge assets. We show that existing attacks are largely ineffective against Graph RAG even with simple prompt-based safeguards, because these attacks expose explicit exfiltration intent and are therefore easily suppressed by lightweight safe prompts. We identify three technical challenges for practical Graph RAG extraction under realistic safeguards and introduce GRASP, a closed-box, multi-turn subgraph reconstruction attack. GRASP (i) reframes extraction as a context-processing task, (ii) enforces format-compliant, instance-grounded outputs via per-record identifiers to reduce hallucinations and preserve relational details, and (iii) diversifies goal-driven attack queries using a discovery-aware scheduler to operate within strict query budgets. Across two real-world knowledge graphs, four safety-aligned LLMs, and multiple Graph RAG frameworks, GRASP attains the strongest type-faithful reconstruction where prior methods fail, reaching up to 82.9 F1. We further evaluate defenses and propose two mitigations that effectively reduce reconstruction fidelity without utility loss.

Youngjin Jin, Hanna Kim, Kwanwoo Kim et al.

Existing multi-expert LLM systems gather diverse perspectives but combine them through simple aggregation, obscuring which arguments drove the final decision. We introduce ARGORA, a framework that organizes multi-expert discussions into explicit argumentation graphs showing which arguments support or attack each other. By casting these graphs as causal models, ARGORA can systematically remove individual arguments and recompute outcomes, identifying which reasoning chains were necessary and whether decisions would change under targeted modifications. We further introduce a correction mechanism that aligns internal reasoning with external judgments when they disagree. Across diverse benchmarks and an open-ended use case, ARGORA achieves competitive accuracy and demonstrates corrective behavior: when experts initially disagree, the framework resolves disputes toward correct answers more often than it introduces new errors, while providing causal diagnostics of decisive arguments.