arXiv:2607.26935cs.AIcs.CR2026-07中稿 · the North East AI …

区分人类、机器人和AI代理,发现两个行为特征即可100%检测AI代理。

What Does It Take to Detect an AI Agent? Minimal Feature Sets for Behavioral Detection under Browser Automation

论文配图:What Does It Take to Detect an AI Agent? Minimal Feature Sets for Behavioral Detection under Browser Automation
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 构建三分类检测框架,突破传统二元判别局限。
  • 仅需鼠标事件率与瞬移点击率两个特征,即可100%识别所有AI代理。
  • 检测信号来自浏览器自动化残留,非代理智能表现,适合安全防御场景。

部署于大规模的机器人检测系统将流量视为二元:人类或机器人。当AI代理通过浏览器自动化浏览网页时,这一类流量既非人类也非传统机器人,二元分类器因标签空间缺失而无法建模。本文提出三类检测框架,区分人类、机器人与AI代理,并证明二元误判源于架构缺陷:二元分类器因缺乏代理类别导致代理会话被错误归类。在受控基准测试中,一个MLP二元分类器将39.1%的真实AI代理误判为人类;一个SAINT二元变换器则误判34.5%。加入显式代理类别后,在全部30次运行(3种模型族×10个种子)中,代理类别的F1值达到1.000。为评估逃逸抵抗能力,构建五级逃逸阶梯,涵盖被动观察、GAN生成轨迹及真实人类光标数据回放(共2299次逃逸会话)。在10个种子与3种模型族下,22990次每种子预测中未出现任何代理漏检。判别信号源自浏览器自动化特征,而非代理推理:Playwright不产生物理输入设备的原始指针移动与滚轮增量流,此缺失特征在轨迹操纵后仍保持有效。对大小为1-5的所有特征子集进行穷举搜索(共9401个GBM模型),发现两个行为特征(mouse_event_rate, teleport_click_ratio)在所有逃逸级别实现100%代理召回率,代理精确率为0.994;增加至五个特征后,宏平均F1提升至0.991。信号具有冗余性:移除teleport_click_ratio后,代理检测仍达100%。单特征情形退化为恒判“代理”,而两个特征可稳健隔离代理,五个特征能以宏平均F1≥0.99分离三类流量。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Bot detectors deployed at scale treat traffic as binary: human or bot. This assumption breaks when AI agents browse the web through browser automation, a traffic class that is neither and that binary classifiers structurally cannot represent. We present a three-class detection framework distinguishing humans, bots, and AI agents, and show that the binary-vs-agent confusion is architectural: a binary human-vs-bot detector misroutes agent sessions because its label space lacks an agent class. On our controlled benchmark, an MLP binary classifier misclassifies 39.1% of real AI agents as human and a SAINT binary transformer misclassifies 34.5%; adding an explicit agent class yields per-class agent F1 = 1.000 in all 30 runs (3 model families $\times$ 10 seeds). To measure evasion resistance, we construct a five-level evasion ladder spanning passive observation, GAN-generated trajectories, and replay of real human cursor data ($n = 2299$ evasion sessions). Across 10 seeds and 3 model families we observe zero agent misses in 22990 per-seed predictions. The discriminative signal is a browser-automation artifact, not evidence of agent reasoning: Playwright does not emit the raw pointer-move and wheel-delta streams a physical input device produces, and this absence signature survives trajectory manipulation. Exhaustive search over all feature subsets of size 1-5 (9401 GBMs) shows that two behavioral features (mouse_event_rate, teleport_click_ratio) give 100% observed agent recall at every evasion level with agent precision 0.994; five features lift macro-F1 to 0.991. The signal is redundantly encoded: removing teleport_click_ratio leaves agent detection at 100%. The single-feature regime is degenerate, flagging every agent only by collapsing the classifier to always predict "agent". Two features robustly isolate agents; five separate all three traffic classes at macro-F1 $\geq 0.99$.

AI代理检测行为分析自动化安全特征工程

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。