Daily Papers

Statistical data anonymization increasingly relies on fully synthetic microdata, for which classical identity disclosure measures are less informative than an adversary's ability to infer sensitive attributes from released data. We introduce RAPID (Risk of Attribute Prediction--Induced Disclosure), a disclosure risk measure that directly quantifies inferential vulnerability under a realistic attack model. An adversary trains a predictive model solely on the released synthetic data and applies it to real individuals' quasi-identifiers. For continuous sensitive attributes, RAPID reports the proportion of records whose predicted values fall within a specified relative error tolerance. For categorical attributes, we propose a baseline-normalized confidence score that measures how much more confident the attacker is about the true class than would be expected from class prevalence alone, and we summarize risk as the fraction of records exceeding a policy-defined threshold. This construction yields an interpretable, bounded risk metric that is robust to class imbalance, independent of any specific synthesizer, and applicable with arbitrary learning algorithms. We illustrate threshold calibration, uncertainty quantification, and comparative evaluation of synthetic data generators using simulations and real data. Our results show that RAPID provides a practical, attacker-realistic upper bound on attribute-inference disclosure risk that complements existing utility diagnostics and disclosure control frameworks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaksx2013methods to elicit harmful or generally impermissible outputs. Safety measures are developed and assessed on their effectiveness at defending against jailbreak attacks, indicating a belief that safety is equivalent to robustness. We assert that current defense mechanisms, such as output filters and alignment fine-tuning, are, and will remain, fundamentally insufficient for ensuring model safety. These defenses fail to address risks arising from dual-intent queries and the ability to composite innocuous outputs to achieve harmful goals. To address this critical gap, we introduce an information-theoretic threat model called inferential adversaries who exploit impermissible information leakage from model outputs to achieve malicious goals. We distinguish these from commonly studied security adversaries who only seek to force victim models to generate specific impermissible outputs. We demonstrate the feasibility of automating inferential adversaries through question decomposition and response aggregation. To provide safety guarantees, we define an information censorship criterion for censorship mechanisms, bounding the leakage of impermissible information. We propose a defense mechanism which ensures this bound and reveal an intrinsic safety-utility trade-off. Our work provides the first theoretically grounded understanding of the requirements for releasing safe LLMs and the utility costs involved.

A membership inference attack (MIA) against a machine-learning model enables an attacker to determine whether a given data record was part of the model's training data or not. In this paper, we provide an in-depth study of the phenomenon of disparate vulnerability against MIAs: unequal success rate of MIAs against different population subgroups. We first establish necessary and sufficient conditions for MIAs to be prevented, both on average and for population subgroups, using a notion of distributional generalization. Second, we derive connections of disparate vulnerability to algorithmic fairness and to differential privacy. We show that fairness can only prevent disparate vulnerability against limited classes of adversaries. Differential privacy bounds disparate vulnerability but can significantly reduce the accuracy of the model. We show that estimating disparate vulnerability to MIAs by na\"ively applying existing attacks can lead to overestimation. We then establish which attacks are suitable for estimating disparate vulnerability, and provide a statistical framework for doing so reliably. We conduct experiments on synthetic and real-world data finding statistically significant evidence of disparate vulnerability in realistic settings. The code is available at https://github.com/spring-epfl/disparate-vulnerability

Deep learning (DL) models have become increasingly popular in identifying software vulnerabilities. Prior studies found that vulnerabilities across different vulnerable programs may exhibit similar vulnerable scopes, implicitly forming discernible vulnerability patterns that can be learned by DL models through supervised training. However, vulnerable scopes still manifest in various spatial locations and formats within a program, posing challenges for models to accurately identify vulnerable statements. Despite this challenge, state-of-the-art vulnerability detection approaches fail to exploit the vulnerability patterns that arise in vulnerable programs. To take full advantage of vulnerability patterns and unleash the ability of DL models, we propose a novel vulnerability-matching approach in this paper, drawing inspiration from program analysis tools that locate vulnerabilities based on pre-defined patterns. Specifically, a vulnerability codebook is learned, which consists of quantized vectors representing various vulnerability patterns. During inference, the codebook is iterated to match all learned patterns and predict the presence of potential vulnerabilities within a given program. Our approach was extensively evaluated on a real-world dataset comprising more than 188,000 C/C++ functions. The evaluation results show that our approach achieves an F1-score of 94% (6% higher than the previous best) and 82% (19% higher than the previous best) for function and statement-level vulnerability identification, respectively. These substantial enhancements highlight the effectiveness of our approach to identifying vulnerabilities. The training code and pre-trained models are available at https://github.com/optimatch/optimatch.

Understanding and anticipating vulnerability-related activity is a major challenge in cyber threat intelligence. This work investigates whether vulnerability sightings, such as proof-of-concept releases, detection templates, or online discussions, can be forecast over time. Building on our earlier work on VLAI, a transformer-based model that predicts vulnerability severity from textual descriptions, we examine whether severity scores can improve time-series forecasting as exogenous variables. We evaluate several approaches for short-term forecasting of sightings per vulnerability. First, we test SARIMAX models with and without log(x+1) transformations and VLAI-derived severity inputs. Although these adjustments provide limited improvements, SARIMAX remains poorly suited to sparse, short, and bursty vulnerability data. In practice, forecasts often produce overly wide confidence intervals and sometimes unrealistic negative values. To better capture the discrete and event-driven nature of sightings, we then explore count-based methods such as Poisson regression. Early results show that these models produce more stable and interpretable forecasts, especially when sightings are aggregated weekly. We also discuss simpler operational alternatives, including exponential decay functions for short forecasting horizons, to estimate future activity without requiring long historical series. Overall, this study highlights both the potential and the limitations of forecasting rare and bursty cyber events, and provides practical guidance for integrating predictive analytics into vulnerability intelligence workflows.

Why do adversarial examples exist, and why do they transfer between models? Existing explanations appeal to high-dimensional geometry, non-robust patterns in the input, and decision boundary structure, but none provides a representation-level mechanism that explains why specific perturbations succeed and why attacks transfer between models. In this paper, we show that adversarial vulnerability can stem from efficient information encoding in neural networks. Specifically, vulnerability can arise from superposition - the phenomenon where networks represent more concepts than they have dimensions, forcing non-orthogonal representation and thus interference. This interference causes perturbations targeting one representation to affect others, creating vulnerabilities determined by interference patterns. In synthetic settings with precisely controlled superposition, we establish that superposition suffices to create adversarial vulnerability. The resulting attacks are predictable: PGD-discovered perturbations align with theoretically optimal perturbations derived from the interference geometry. Models trained on similar data develop similar interference patterns, explaining attack transferability. We then show that successful attacks on image classifiers exhibit the structure predicted by our proposed mechanism. These findings reveal that adversarial vulnerability can be a byproduct of networks' representational compression, complementing existing explanations based on data properties or architectural factors.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is increasingly deployed in real-world applications, where its reference-grounded design makes outputs appear trustworthy. This trust has spurred research on poisoning attacks that craft malicious content, inject it into knowledge sources, and manipulate RAG responses. However, when evaluated in practical RAG systems, existing attacks suffer from severely degraded effectiveness. This gap stems from two overlooked realities: (i) content is often processed before use, which can fragment the poison and weaken its effect, and (ii) users often do not issue the exact queries anticipated during attack design. These factors can lead practitioners to underestimate risks and develop a false sense of security. To better characterize the threat to practical systems, we present Confundo, a learning-to-poison framework that fine-tunes a large language model as a poison generator to achieve high effectiveness, robustness, and stealthiness. Confundo provides a unified framework supporting multiple attack objectives, demonstrated by manipulating factual correctness, inducing biased opinions, and triggering hallucinations. By addressing these overlooked challenges, Confundo consistently outperforms a wide range of purpose-built attacks across datasets and RAG configurations by large margins, even in the presence of defenses. Beyond exposing vulnerabilities, we also present a defensive use case that protects web content from unauthorized incorporation into RAG systems via scraping, with no impact on user experience.

Current evaluations of LLM safety predominantly rely on severity-based taxonomies to assess the harmfulness of malicious queries. We argue that this formulation requires re-examination as it assumes uniform risk across all malicious queries, neglecting Execution Likelihood--the conditional probability of a threat being realized given the model's response. In this work, we introduce Expected Harm, a metric that weights the severity of a jailbreak by its execution likelihood, modeled as a function of execution cost. Through empirical analysis of state-of-the-art models, we reveal a systematic Inverse Risk Calibration: models disproportionately exhibit stronger refusal behaviors for low-likelihood (high-cost) threats while remaining vulnerable to high-likelihood (low-cost) queries. We demonstrate that this miscalibration creates a structural vulnerability: by exploiting this property, we increase the attack success rate of existing jailbreaks by up to 2times. Finally, we trace the root cause of this failure using linear probing, which reveals that while models encode severity in their latent space to drive refusal decisions, they possess no distinguishable internal representation of execution cost, making them "blind" to this critical dimension of risk.

A distribution inference attack aims to infer statistical properties of data used to train machine learning models. These attacks are sometimes surprisingly potent, but the factors that impact distribution inference risk are not well understood and demonstrated attacks often rely on strong and unrealistic assumptions such as full knowledge of training environments even in supposedly black-box threat scenarios. To improve understanding of distribution inference risks, we develop a new black-box attack that even outperforms the best known white-box attack in most settings. Using this new attack, we evaluate distribution inference risk while relaxing a variety of assumptions about the adversary's knowledge under black-box access, like known model architectures and label-only access. Finally, we evaluate the effectiveness of previously proposed defenses and introduce new defenses. We find that although noise-based defenses appear to be ineffective, a simple re-sampling defense can be highly effective. Code is available at https://github.com/iamgroot42/dissecting_distribution_inference

LLMs demonstrate promising performance in software vulnerability detection after fine-tuning. However, it remains unclear whether these gains reflect a genuine understanding of vulnerability root causes or merely an exploitation of functional patterns. In this paper, we identify a critical failure mode termed the "semantic trap," where fine-tuned LLMs achieve high detection scores by associating certain functional domains with vulnerability likelihood rather than reasoning about the underlying security semantics. To systematically evaluate this phenomenon, we propose TrapEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework designed to disentangle vulnerability root cause from functional pattern. TrapEval introduces two complementary datasets derived from real-world open-source projects: V2N, which pairs vulnerable code with unrelated benign code, and V2P, which pairs vulnerable code with its corresponding patched version, forcing models to distinguish near-identical code that differs only in subtle security-critical logic. Using TrapEval, we fine-tune five representative state-of-the-art LLMs across three model families and evaluate them under cross-dataset testing, semantic-preserving perturbations, and varying degrees of semantic gap measured by CodeBLEU. Our empirical results reveal that, despite improvements in metrics, fine-tuned LLMs consistently struggle to distinguish vulnerable code from its patched counterpart, exhibit severe robustness degradation under minor semantic-preserving transformations, and rely heavily on functional-context shortcuts when the semantic gap is small. These findings provide strong evidence that current fine-tuning practices often fail to impart true vulnerability reasoning. Our findings serve as a wake-up call: high benchmark scores on traditional datasets may be illusory, masking the model's inability to understand the true causal logic of vulnerabilities.

Automated detection of software vulnerabilities is a fundamental problem in software security. Existing program analysis techniques either suffer from high false positives or false negatives. Recent progress in Deep Learning (DL) has resulted in a surge of interest in applying DL for automated vulnerability detection. Several recent studies have demonstrated promising results achieving an accuracy of up to 95% at detecting vulnerabilities. In this paper, we ask, "how well do the state-of-the-art DL-based techniques perform in a real-world vulnerability prediction scenario?". To our surprise, we find that their performance drops by more than 50%. A systematic investigation of what causes such precipitous performance drop reveals that existing DL-based vulnerability prediction approaches suffer from challenges with the training data (e.g., data duplication, unrealistic distribution of vulnerable classes, etc.) and with the model choices (e.g., simple token-based models). As a result, these approaches often do not learn features related to the actual cause of the vulnerabilities. Instead, they learn unrelated artifacts from the dataset (e.g., specific variable/function names, etc.). Leveraging these empirical findings, we demonstrate how a more principled approach to data collection and model design, based on realistic settings of vulnerability prediction, can lead to better solutions. The resulting tools perform significantly better than the studied baseline: up to 33.57% boost in precision and 128.38% boost in recall compared to the best performing model in the literature. Overall, this paper elucidates existing DL-based vulnerability prediction systems' potential issues and draws a roadmap for future DL-based vulnerability prediction research. In that spirit, we make available all the artifacts supporting our results: https://git.io/Jf6IA.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a well-documented gap between latent capability and consistent activation: the router hypothesis posits that models possess the knowledge to solve a task but lack reliable internal routing to activate it. Prior work in formal mathematical reasoning (SAIR, Cázares 2026) reports that structural priors (cheatsheets) raise in-distribution performance dramatically, yet collapse below the zero-shot baseline out-of-distribution (OOD) -- and that iterative recalibration amplifies rather than corrects the collapse. We test whether this phenomenon is cross-domain by reproducing the SAIR design in source-code security vulnerability detection, evaluating three LLMs (GPT-OSS-120B, Llama-3.3-70B, Gemma-4-31B) across three vulnerability categories (CWE-798, CWE-284, and the non-CWE N+1 anti-pattern) spanning syntactic, contextual, and semantic complexity, then transferring cheatsheet-augmented prompts to real-world CVE data from VUDENC (CWE-89, CWE-22). Our findings replicate and extend SAIR: (F1) structural priors lift semantic-vulnerability recall from 20.0% to 100.0% across all models; (F2) zero-shot performance degrades along a semantic complexity gradient; (F3) the same cheatsheets that saturate synthetic performance amplify distribution-shift collapse on real CVE data (CWE-89: 100% synthetic F1 to 48.9% on VUDENC, -51.1pp); (F5) iterative recalibration produces a v2 cheatsheet that performs worse than v1 on real data, mirroring SAIR's AN45c-vs-AN38 finding. These results provide evidence that the cross-distribution trade-off surface documented in SAIR generalises to code security, and that the router hypothesis is cross-domain. We argue the structural nature of the collapse motivates distribution-aware training over prompt calibration. Code and evaluation scripts: https://github.com/bytepro-ai/bitcoder-v2-research

Researchers and practitioners increasingly apply Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated vulnerability detection. Recent work has shown that LLMs are susceptible to the same cognitive heuristics that bias human judgment. Yet, no work has investigated whether these heuristics affect a model's assessment of code vulnerabilities. In this paper, we present the first systematic exploration of cognitive heuristics in LLM-driven code vulnerability detection. We introduce a controlled framework that holds the code fixed and only varies the surrounding context to trigger three cognitive heuristics: the halo effect through author attribution, the framing effect through task objectives and consequences, and the anchoring effect through prior analysis results. Within this framework, we evaluate eight LLMs across three programming languages and perform both quantitative and code-level analyses. Our findings demonstrate that all evaluated models are susceptible to these heuristics. Cross-model average susceptibility is highest for framing at 33.2%, followed by anchoring at 23.5% and halo at 18.4%. Code-level analysis reveals that vulnerabilities that require semantic reasoning for detection are more susceptible to cognitive heuristics than those identifiable through pattern matching. Furthermore, models often change their verdict from safe to vulnerable based on the cognitive condition, without accurately identifying the actual vulnerability. To highlight the practical impact, we demonstrate a proof-of-concept black-box cognitive attack that can suppress up to 97% of previously detected vulnerabilities. These findings indicate that cognitive susceptibility is a consistent and exploitable property of LLM-based vulnerability detection.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in code understanding tasks. However, they demonstrate limited performance in vulnerability detection and struggle to distinguish vulnerable code from patched code. We argue that LLMs lack understanding of security specifications -- the expectations about how code should behave to remain safe. When code behavior differs from these expectations, it becomes a potential vulnerability. However, such knowledge is rarely explicit in training data, leaving models unable to reason about security flaws. We propose VulInstruct, a specification-guided approach that systematically extracts security specifications from historical vulnerabilities to detect new ones. VulInstruct constructs a specification knowledge base from two perspectives: (i) General specifications from high-quality patches across projects, capturing fundamental safe behaviors; and (ii) Domain-specific specifications from repeated violations in particular repositories relevant to the target code. VulInstruct retrieves relevant past cases and specifications, enabling LLMs to reason about expected safe behaviors rather than relying on surface patterns. We evaluate VulInstruct under strict criteria requiring both correct predictions and valid reasoning. On PrimeVul, VulInstruct achieves 45.0% F1-score (32.7% improvement) and 37.7% recall (50.8% improvement) compared to baselines, while uniquely detecting 24.3% of vulnerabilities -- 2.4x more than any baseline. In pair-wise evaluation, VulInstruct achieves 32.3% relative improvement. VulInstruct also discovered a previously unknown high-severity vulnerability (CVE-2025-56538) in production code, demonstrating practical value for real-world vulnerability discovery. All code and supplementary materials are available at https://github.com/zhuhaopku/VulInstruct-temp.

Large language models (LLMs) have witnessed rapid advancements, demonstrating remarkable capabilities. However, a notable vulnerability persists: LLMs often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs. This emphasizes the significance of possessing the Premise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises. Most existing studies assess LLMs' reasoning ability in ideal settings, largely ignoring their vulnerabilities when faced with flawed premises. Thus, we introduce the Premise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics. We conducted systematic evaluations of 15 representative LLMs. Our findings reveal: (1) Most models rely heavily on explicit prompts to detect errors, with limited autonomous critique; (2) Premise critique ability depends on question difficulty and error type, with direct contradictions being easier to detect than complex or procedural errors; (3) Reasoning ability does not consistently correlate with the premise critique ability; (4) Flawed premises trigger overthinking in reasoning models, markedly lengthening responses due to repeated attempts at resolving conflicts. These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LLMs' proactive evaluation of input validity, positioning premise critique as a foundational capability for developing reliable, human-centric systems. The code is available at https://github.com/MLGroupJLU/Premise_Critique.

Deterministic inference is a comforting ideal in classical software: the same program on the same input should always produce the same output. As large language models move into real-world deployment, this ideal has been imported wholesale into inference stacks. Recent work from the Thinking Machines Lab has presented a detailed analysis of nondeterminism in LLM inference, showing how batch-invariant kernels and deterministic attention can enforce bitwise-identical outputs, positioning deterministic inference as a prerequisite for reproducibility and enterprise reliability. In this paper, we take the opposite stance. We argue that, for LLMs, deterministic inference kills. It kills the ability to model uncertainty, suppresses emergent abilities, collapses reasoning into a single brittle path, and weakens safety alignment by hiding tail risks. LLMs implement conditional distributions over outputs, not fixed functions. Collapsing these distributions to a single canonical completion may appear reassuring, but it systematically conceals properties central to artificial cognition. We instead advocate Stochastic CHAOS, treating distributional variability as a signal to be measured and controlled. Empirically, we show that deterministic inference is systematically misleading. Single-sample deterministic evaluation underestimates both capability and fragility, masking failure probability under paraphrases and noise. Phase-like transitions associated with emergent abilities disappear under greedy decoding. Multi-path reasoning degrades when forced onto deterministic backbones, reducing accuracy and diagnostic insight. Finally, deterministic evaluation underestimates safety risk by hiding rare but dangerous behaviors that appear only under multi-sample evaluation.

As large language models (LLMs) transition to autonomous agents synthesizing real-time information, their reasoning capabilities introduce an unexpected attack surface. This paper introduces a novel threat where colluding agents steer victim beliefs using only truthful evidence fragments distributed through public channels, without relying on covert communications, backdoors, or falsified documents. By exploiting LLMs' overthinking tendency, we formalize the first cognitive collusion attack and propose Generative Montage: a Writer-Editor-Director framework that constructs deceptive narratives through adversarial debate and coordinated posting of evidence fragments, causing victims to internalize and propagate fabricated conclusions. To study this risk, we develop CoPHEME, a dataset derived from real-world rumor events, and simulate attacks across diverse LLM families. Our results show pervasive vulnerability across 14 LLM families: attack success rates reach 74.4% for proprietary models and 70.6% for open-weights models. Counterintuitively, stronger reasoning capabilities increase susceptibility, with reasoning-specialized models showing higher attack success than base models or prompts. Furthermore, these false beliefs then cascade to downstream judges, achieving over 60% deception rates, highlighting a socio-technical vulnerability in how LLM-based agents interact with dynamic information environments. Our implementation and data are available at: https://github.com/CharlesJW222/Lying_with_Truth/tree/main.

Recent reasoning large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable improvements in mathematical reasoning capabilities through long Chain-of-Thought. The reasoning tokens of these models enable self-correction within reasoning chains, enhancing robustness. This motivates our exploration: how vulnerable are reasoning LLMs to subtle errors in their input reasoning chains? We introduce "Compromising Thought" (CPT), a vulnerability where models presented with reasoning tokens containing manipulated calculation results tend to ignore correct reasoning steps and adopt incorrect results instead. Through systematic evaluation across multiple reasoning LLMs, we design three increasingly explicit prompting methods to measure CPT resistance, revealing that models struggle significantly to identify and correct these manipulations. Notably, contrary to existing research suggesting structural alterations affect model performance more than content modifications, we find that local ending token manipulations have greater impact on reasoning outcomes than structural changes. Moreover, we discover a security vulnerability in DeepSeek-R1 where tampered reasoning tokens can trigger complete reasoning cessation. Our work enhances understanding of reasoning robustness and highlights security considerations for reasoning-intensive applications.

Deploying machine learning models in production may allow adversaries to infer sensitive information about training data. There is a vast literature analyzing different types of inference risks, ranging from membership inference to reconstruction attacks. Inspired by the success of games (i.e., probabilistic experiments) to study security properties in cryptography, some authors describe privacy inference risks in machine learning using a similar game-based style. However, adversary capabilities and goals are often stated in subtly different ways from one presentation to the other, which makes it hard to relate and compose results. In this paper, we present a game-based framework to systematize the body of knowledge on privacy inference risks in machine learning. We use this framework to (1) provide a unifying structure for definitions of inference risks, (2) formally establish known relations among definitions, and (3) to uncover hitherto unknown relations that would have been difficult to spot otherwise.

Recently, Zaremba et al. demonstrated that increasing inference-time computation improves robustness in large proprietary reasoning LLMs. In this paper, we first show that smaller-scale, open-source models (e.g., DeepSeek R1, Qwen3, Phi-reasoning) can also benefit from inference-time scaling using a simple budget forcing strategy. More importantly, we reveal and critically examine an implicit assumption in prior work: intermediate reasoning steps are hidden from adversaries. By relaxing this assumption, we identify an important security risk, intuitively motivated and empirically verified as an inverse scaling law: if intermediate reasoning steps become explicitly accessible, increased inference-time computation consistently reduces model robustness. Finally, we discuss practical scenarios where models with hidden reasoning chains are still vulnerable to attacks, such as models with tool-integrated reasoning and advanced reasoning extraction attacks. Our findings collectively demonstrate that the robustness benefits of inference-time scaling depend heavily on the adversarial setting and deployment context. We urge practitioners to carefully weigh these subtle trade-offs before applying inference-time scaling in security-sensitive, real-world applications.

Autonomous language-model agents increasingly rely on installable skills and tools to complete user tasks. Static skill auditing can expose capability surface before deployment, but it cannot determine whether a particular invocation is unsafe under the current user request and runtime context. We therefore study skill invocation auditing as a continuous-risk estimation problem: given a user request, candidate skill, and runtime context, predict a score that supports ranking and triage before a hard intervention is applied. We introduce STARS, which combines a static capability prior, a request-conditioned invocation risk model, and a calibrated risk-fusion policy. To evaluate this setting, we construct SIA-Bench, a benchmark of 3,000 invocation records with group-safe splits, lineage metadata, runtime context, canonical action labels, and derived continuous-risk targets. On a held-out split of indirect prompt injection attacks, calibrated fusion reaches 0.439 high-risk AUPRC, improving over 0.405 for the contextual scorer and 0.380 for the strongest static baseline, while the contextual scorer remains better calibrated with 0.289 expected calibration error. On the locked in-distribution test split, gains are smaller and static priors remain useful. The resulting claim is therefore narrower: request-conditioned auditing is most valuable as an invocation-time risk-scoring and triage layer rather than as a replacement for static screening. Code is available at https://github.com/123zgj123/STARS.

Leading large language model providers now conceal their models' step-by-step reasoning, or chain-of-thought, to protect intellectual property and limit information leakage. Rather than storing these traces server-side, providers return them to the client as blocks of encrypted text, which the client passes back with each subsequent request. Building on prior research, we identify an architectural vulnerability: these encrypted blocks are fully compatible and interchangeable across different sessions, users, and models within a provider's ecosystem. We exploit this compatibility to develop a scalable decryption jailbreak. By injecting an encrypted reasoning trace from a given model into a weaker, and less safeguarded model from the same provider, we force it to decode and output the trace verbatim in plaintext, without ever jailbreaking the more capable model directly. This vulnerability enables four distinct attack vectors. First, it circumvents anti-distillation mechanisms, allowing adversaries to extract a proprietary model's reasoning, as we demonstrate across Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. Second, it allows for large-scale private data extraction. Developers frequently share session logs publicly, unaware of contents of the encrypted blocks. By decoding 315,320 reasoning blocks scraped from public repositories, we recovered 367 Personally Identifiable Information (PII) artifacts and 182 credentials. Third, it inadvertently reveals hazardous information hidden within the reasoning process, even in cases where the model's final, visible output safely rejects a malicious request. Fourth, attackers can leverage this flaw to execute invisible prompt injections, embedding malicious payloads entirely within encrypted blocks to poison public agentic rollouts. Following responsible disclosure, we propose concrete cryptographic and system-level mitigations to secure client-side reasoning.

The impact of software vulnerabilities on everyday software systems is significant. Despite deep learning models being proposed for vulnerability detection, their reliability is questionable. Prior evaluations show high recall/F1 scores of up to 99%, but these models underperform in practical scenarios, particularly when assessed on entire codebases rather than just the fixing commit. This paper introduces Real-Vul, a comprehensive dataset representing real-world scenarios for evaluating vulnerability detection models. Evaluating DeepWukong, LineVul, ReVeal, and IVDetect shows a significant drop in performance, with precision decreasing by up to 95 percentage points and F1 scores by up to 91 points. Furthermore, Model performance fluctuates based on vulnerability characteristics, with better F1 scores for information leaks or code injection than for path resolution or predictable return values. The results highlight a significant performance gap that needs addressing before deploying deep learning-based vulnerability detection in practical settings. Overfitting is identified as a key issue, and an augmentation technique is proposed, potentially improving performance by up to 30%. Contributions include a dataset creation approach for better model evaluation, Real-Vul dataset, and empirical evidence of deep learning models struggling in real-world settings.

Search-augmented LLMs increasingly mediate everyday consumer recommendations by retrieving live web content. This creates a new risk: LLM recommenders may consume web content that Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) operators have polluted to mislead them. We ask: to what extent do they become unwitting promoters of fake products? We introduce FORGE (Fake Online Recommendations in Generative Environments), which locally rewrites real products in a frozen set of retrieved web pages into fake ones and measures how often the LLM recommends the fake product, across 225 real products in 15 categories and 5 consumer scenarios. Across 12 commercial and open-weights LLMs, all models are vulnerable: a single polluted page yields fooled rates of up to 27%, while the full top-3 replacement raises this to 73.8%. Vulnerability varies across categories, increasing when models lack stable prior knowledge of the products. Reasoning does not mitigate this vulnerability; instead, it often generates spurious social proof to justify false recommendations. None of the four defenses is adequate: the skepticism prompt can exacerbate vulnerability much like reasoning, the two consensus filters risk suppressing legitimate products, and credibility re-ranking helps every model but removes only a sixth of the fakes. We release the FORGE benchmark and the evaluation code at https://github.com/leoluolol/forge-benchmark.

Current language model evaluations measure what models know under ideal conditions but not how robustly they know it under realistic stress. Static benchmarks like MMLU and TruthfulQA cannot distinguish a model that lacks knowledge from one whose verification mechanisms collapse when information degrades or adversaries probe for weaknesses. We introduce the Drill-Down and Fabricate Test (DDFT), a protocol that measures epistemic robustness: a model's ability to maintain factual accuracy under progressive semantic compression and adversarial fabrication. We propose a two-system cognitive model comprising a Semantic System that generates fluent text and an Epistemic Verifier that validates factual accuracy. Our findings, based on evaluating 9 frontier models across 8 knowledge domains at 5 compression levels (1,800 turn-level evaluations), reveal that epistemic robustness is orthogonal to conventional design paradigms. Neither parameter count (r=0.083, p=0.832) nor architectural type (r=0.153, p=0.695) significantly predicts robustness, suggesting it emerges from training methodology and verification mechanisms distinct from current approaches. Error detection capability strongly predicts overall robustness (rho=-0.817, p=0.007), indicating this is the critical bottleneck. We find that flagship models exhibit brittleness despite their scale, while smaller models can achieve robust performance, challenging assumptions about the relationship between model size and reliability. The DDFT framework provides both theoretical foundation and practical tools for assessing epistemic robustness before deployment in critical applications.

Modern machine learning models are sensitive to the manipulation of both the training data (poisoning attacks) and inference data (adversarial examples). Recognizing this issue, the community has developed many empirical defenses against both attacks and, more recently, certification methods with provable guarantees against inference-time attacks. However, such guarantees are still largely lacking for training-time attacks. In this work, we present FullCert, the first end-to-end certifier with sound, deterministic bounds, which proves robustness against both training-time and inference-time attacks. We first bound all possible perturbations an adversary can make to the training data under the considered threat model. Using these constraints, we bound the perturbations' influence on the model's parameters. Finally, we bound the impact of these parameter changes on the model's prediction, resulting in joint robustness guarantees against poisoning and adversarial examples. To facilitate this novel certification paradigm, we combine our theoretical work with a new open-source library BoundFlow, which enables model training on bounded datasets. We experimentally demonstrate FullCert's feasibility on two datasets.

Vulnerability detection is crucial for ensuring the security and reliability of software systems. Recently, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as a prominent code embedding approach for vulnerability detection, owing to their ability to capture the underlying semantic structure of source code. However, GNNs face significant challenges in explainability due to their inherently black-box nature. To this end, several factual reasoning-based explainers have been proposed. These explainers provide explanations for the predictions made by GNNs by analyzing the key features that contribute to the outcomes. We argue that these factual reasoning-based explanations cannot answer critical what-if questions: What would happen to the GNN's decision if we were to alter the code graph into alternative structures? Inspired by advancements of counterfactual reasoning in artificial intelligence, we propose CFExplainer, a novel counterfactual explainer for GNN-based vulnerability detection. Unlike factual reasoning-based explainers, CFExplainer seeks the minimal perturbation to the input code graph that leads to a change in the prediction, thereby addressing the what-if questions for vulnerability detection. We term this perturbation a counterfactual explanation, which can pinpoint the root causes of the detected vulnerability and furnish valuable insights for developers to undertake appropriate actions for fixing the vulnerability. Extensive experiments on four GNN-based vulnerability detection models demonstrate the effectiveness of CFExplainer over existing state-of-the-art factual reasoning-based explainers.

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) aim to determine whether a specific sample was used to train a predictive model. Knowing this may indeed lead to a privacy breach. Most MIAs, however, make use of the model's prediction scores - the probability of each output given some input - following the intuition that the trained model tends to behave differently on its training data. We argue that this is a fallacy for many modern deep network architectures. Consequently, MIAs will miserably fail since overconfidence leads to high false-positive rates not only on known domains but also on out-of-distribution data and implicitly acts as a defense against MIAs. Specifically, using generative adversarial networks, we are able to produce a potentially infinite number of samples falsely classified as part of the training data. In other words, the threat of MIAs is overestimated, and less information is leaked than previously assumed. Moreover, there is actually a trade-off between the overconfidence of models and their susceptibility to MIAs: the more classifiers know when they do not know, making low confidence predictions, the more they reveal the training data.

Large language models are increasingly used to author Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC), where a single insecure default can be deployed directly into production. Prior evaluations report raw vulnerability counts for model-generated IaC, but without a human baseline they cannot determine whether models are actually worse than engineers. We introduce GenIaC-SecBench, a benchmark of 100 deployment scenarios stratified by architectural complexity, evaluated across 12 model configurations from four vendors, producing 1,196 IaC artifacts scanned by three independent policy engines (Checkov, Trivy, KICS). Critically, we also scan 634 human-authored IaC templates with the same toolchain, providing the first size-matched human security baseline. Vulnerability density is strongly inverse to artifact size (Spearman ρ= -0.55, p < 10^{-77}), meaning unmatched comparisons measure size rather than security. When matched on declared-resource count, all model configurations fall within 3.21x--3.87x the human vulnerability density, with the gap widening for simpler tasks (4.9x at one resource, 1.4x at twenty or more). We decompose reasoning into standard generation, prompt-engineered chain-of-thought, and vendor extended-thinking APIs. Vendor extended thinking significantly outperforms prompted chain-of-thought (-12.0%, p = 0.0013), while prompted chain-of-thought is indistinguishable from standard generation (-1.3%, n.s.). Token instrumentation shows extended thinking uses under 1\% of the output budget, explaining its bounded effect. Two negative results also emerge: deployability does not correlate with vulnerability (r = 0.158, p = 0.625), and classical complete-case Friedman testing is infeasible for realistic benchmark designs, motivating the Skillings-Mack statistic. All code, data, and regeneration scripts are released.

LLM developers have imposed technical interventions to prevent fine-tuning misuse attacks, attacks where adversaries evade safeguards by fine-tuning the model using a public API. Previous work has established several successful attacks against specific fine-tuning API defences. In this work, we show that defences of fine-tuning APIs that seek to detect individual harmful training or inference samples ('pointwise' detection) are fundamentally limited in their ability to prevent fine-tuning attacks. We construct 'pointwise-undetectable' attacks that repurpose entropy in benign model outputs (e.g. semantic or syntactic variations) to covertly transmit dangerous knowledge. Our attacks are composed solely of unsuspicious benign samples that can be collected from the model before fine-tuning, meaning training and inference samples are all individually benign and low-perplexity. We test our attacks against the OpenAI fine-tuning API, finding they succeed in eliciting answers to harmful multiple-choice questions, and that they evade an enhanced monitoring system we design that successfully detects other fine-tuning attacks. We encourage the community to develop defences that tackle the fundamental limitations we uncover in pointwise fine-tuning API defences.

The origin of adversarial examples is still inexplicable in research fields, and it arouses arguments from various viewpoints, albeit comprehensive investigations. In this paper, we propose a way of delving into the unexpected vulnerability in adversarially trained networks from a causal perspective, namely adversarial instrumental variable (IV) regression. By deploying it, we estimate the causal relation of adversarial prediction under an unbiased environment dissociated from unknown confounders. Our approach aims to demystify inherent causal features on adversarial examples by leveraging a zero-sum optimization game between a casual feature estimator (i.e., hypothesis model) and worst-case counterfactuals (i.e., test function) disturbing to find causal features. Through extensive analyses, we demonstrate that the estimated causal features are highly related to the correct prediction for adversarial robustness, and the counterfactuals exhibit extreme features significantly deviating from the correct prediction. In addition, we present how to effectively inoculate CAusal FEatures (CAFE) into defense networks for improving adversarial robustness.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in open-source software (OSS) ecosystems, creating complex interactions among natural language prompts, probabilistic model outputs, and execution-capable components. However, it remains unclear whether traditional vulnerability disclosure frameworks adequately capture these model-mediated risks. To investigate this, we analyze 295 GitHub Security Advisories published between January 2025 and January 2026 that reference LLM-related components, and we manually annotate a sample of 100 advisories using the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025. We find no evidence of new implementation-level weakness classes specific to LLM systems. Most advisories map to established CWEs, particularly injection and deserialization weaknesses. At the same time, the OWASP-based analysis reveals recurring architectural risk patterns, especially Supply Chain, Excessive Agency, and Prompt Injection, which often co-occur across multiple stages of execution. These results suggest that existing advisory metadata captures code-level defects but underrepresents model-mediated exposure. We conclude that combining the CWE and OWASP perspectives provides a more complete and necessary view of vulnerabilities in LLM-integrated systems.

Vulnerability prediction is valuable in identifying security issues more efficiently, even though it requires the source code of the target software system, which is a restrictive hypothesis. This paper presents an experimental study to predict vulnerabilities in binary code without source code or complex representations of the binary, leveraging the pivotal idea of decompiling the binary file through neural decompilation and predicting vulnerabilities through deep learning on the decompiled source code. The results outperform the state-of-the-art in both neural decompilation and vulnerability prediction, showing that it is possible to identify vulnerable programs with this approach concerning bi-class (vulnerable/non-vulnerable) and multi-class (type of vulnerability) analysis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically evaluated for safety under single-shot or low-budget adversarial prompting, which underestimates real-world risk. In practice, attackers can exploit large-scale parallel sampling to repeatedly probe a model until a harmful response is produced. While recent work shows that attack success increases with repeated sampling, principled methods for predicting large-scale adversarial risk remain limited. We propose a scaling-aware Best-of-N estimation of risk, SABER, for modeling jailbreak vulnerability under Best-of-N sampling. We model sample-level success probabilities using a Beta distribution, the conjugate prior of the Bernoulli distribution, and derive an analytic scaling law that enables reliable extrapolation of large-N attack success rates from small-budget measurements. Using only n=100 samples, our anchored estimator predicts ASR@1000 with a mean absolute error of 1.66, compared to 12.04 for the baseline, which is an 86.2% reduction in estimation error. Our results reveal heterogeneous risk scaling profiles and show that models appearing robust under standard evaluation can experience rapid nonlinear risk amplification under parallel adversarial pressure. This work provides a low-cost, scalable methodology for realistic LLM safety assessment. We will release our code and evaluation scripts upon publication to future research.

Current learning-based Automated Vulnerability Repair (AVR) approaches, while promising, often fail to generalize effectively in real-world scenarios. Our diagnostic analysis reveals three fundamental weaknesses in state-of-the-art AVR approaches: (1) limited cross-repository generalization, with performance drops on unseen codebases; (2) inability to capture long-range dependencies, causing a performance degradation on complex, multi-hunk repairs; and (3) over-reliance on superficial lexical patterns, leading to significant performance drops on vulnerabilities with minor syntactic variations like variable renaming. To address these limitations, we propose SeCuRepair, a semantics-aligned, curriculum-driven, and reasoning-enhanced framework for vulnerability repair. At its core, SeCuRepair adopts a reason-then-edit paradigm, requiring the model to articulate why and how a vulnerability should be fixed before generating the patch. This explicit reasoning enforces a genuine understanding of repair logic rather than superficial memorization of lexical patterns. SeCuRepair also moves beyond traditional supervised fine-tuning and employs semantics-aware reinforcement learning, rewarding patches for their syntactic and semantic alignment with the oracle patch rather than mere token overlap. Complementing this, a difficulty-aware curriculum progressively trains the model, starting with simple fixes and advancing to complex, multi-hunk coordinated edits. We evaluate SeCuRepair on strict, repository-level splits of BigVul and newly crafted PrimeVul_AVR datasets. SeCuRepair significantly outperforms all baselines, surpassing the best-performing baselines by 34.52% on BigVul and 31.52% on PrimeVulAVR in terms of CodeBLEU, respectively. Comprehensive ablation studies further confirm that each component of our framework contributes to its final performance.

In regression and causal inference, controlled subgroup selection aims to identify, with inferential guarantees, a subgroup (defined as a subset of the covariate space) on which the average response or treatment effect is above a given threshold. E.g., in a clinical trial, it may be of interest to find a subgroup with a positive average treatment effect. However, existing methods either lack inferential guarantees, heavily restrict the search for the subgroup, or sacrifice efficiency by naive data splitting. We propose a novel framework called chiseling that allows the analyst to interactively refine and test a candidate subgroup by iteratively shrinking it. The sole restriction is that the shrinkage direction only depends on the points outside the current subgroup, but otherwise the analyst may leverage any prior information or machine learning algorithm. Despite this flexibility, chiseling controls the probability that the discovered subgroup is null (e.g., has a non-positive average treatment effect) under minimal assumptions: for example, in randomized experiments, this inferential validity guarantee holds under only bounded moment conditions. When applied to a variety of simulated datasets and a real survey experiment, chiseling identifies substantially better subgroups than existing methods with inferential guarantees.

While reinforcement learning-trained Large Reasoning Models (LRMs, e.g., Deepseek-R1) demonstrate advanced reasoning capabilities in the evolving Large Language Models (LLMs) domain, their susceptibility to security threats remains a critical vulnerability. This weakness is particularly evident in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generation processes, where adversarial methods like backdoor prompt attacks can systematically subvert the model's core reasoning mechanisms. The emerging Chain-of-Thought Attack (CoTA) reveals this vulnerability through exploiting prompt controllability, simultaneously degrading both CoT safety and task performance with low-cost interventions. To address this compounded security-performance vulnerability, we propose Thought Purity (TP): a defense paradigm that systematically strengthens resistance to malicious content while preserving operational efficacy. Our solution achieves this through three synergistic components: (1) a safety-optimized data processing pipeline (2) reinforcement learning-enhanced rule constraints (3) adaptive monitoring metrics. Our approach establishes the first comprehensive defense mechanism against CoTA vulnerabilities in reinforcement learning-aligned reasoning systems, significantly advancing the security-functionality equilibrium for next-generation AI architectures.

The safety and alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) are critical for their responsible deployment. Current evaluation methods predominantly focus on identifying and preventing overtly harmful outputs. However, they often fail to address a more insidious failure mode: models that produce benign-appearing outputs while operating on malicious or deceptive internal reasoning. This vulnerability, often triggered by sophisticated system prompt injections, allows models to bypass conventional safety filters, posing a significant, underexplored risk. To address this gap, we introduce the Deceptive Reasoning Exposure Suite (D-REX), a novel dataset designed to evaluate the discrepancy between a model's internal reasoning process and its final output. D-REX was constructed through a competitive red-teaming exercise where participants crafted adversarial system prompts to induce such deceptive behaviors. Each sample in D-REX contains the adversarial system prompt, an end-user's test query, the model's seemingly innocuous response, and, crucially, the model's internal chain-of-thought, which reveals the underlying malicious intent. Our benchmark facilitates a new, essential evaluation task: the detection of deceptive alignment. We demonstrate that D-REX presents a significant challenge for existing models and safety mechanisms, highlighting the urgent need for new techniques that scrutinize the internal processes of LLMs, not just their final outputs.

Automating software vulnerability detection (SVD) remains a critical challenge in an era of increasingly complex and interdependent software systems. Despite significant advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) for code analysis, prevailing evaluation methodologies often lack the context-aware robustness necessary to capture real-world intricacies and cross-component interactions. To address these limitations, we present VulnSage, a comprehensive evaluation framework and a dataset curated from diverse, large-scale open-source system software projects developed in C/C++. Unlike prior datasets, it leverages a heuristic noise pre-filtering approach combined with LLM-based reasoning to ensure a representative and minimally noisy spectrum of vulnerabilities. The framework supports multi-granular analysis across function, file, and inter-function levels and employs four diverse zero-shot prompt strategies: Baseline, Chain-of-Thought, Think, and Think & Verify. Through this evaluation, we uncover that structured reasoning prompts substantially improve LLM performance, with Think & Verify reducing ambiguous responses from 20.3% to 9.1% while increasing accuracy. We further demonstrate that code-specialized models consistently outperform general-purpose alternatives, with performance varying significantly across vulnerability types, revealing that no single approach universally excels across all security contexts. Link to dataset and codes: https://github.com/Erroristotle/VulnSage.git

Large language models (LLMs) continually evolve through pre-training on ever-expanding web data, but this adaptive process also exposes them to subtle forms of misinformation. While prior work has explored data poisoning during static pre-training, the effects of such manipulations under continual pre-training remain largely unexplored. Drawing inspiration from the illusory truth effect in human cognition - where repeated exposure to falsehoods increases belief in their accuracy - we ask whether LLMs exhibit a similar vulnerability. We investigate whether repeated exposure to false but confidently stated facts can shift a model's internal representation away from the truth. We introduce Layer of Truth, a framework and dataset for probing belief dynamics in continually trained LLMs. By injecting controlled amounts of poisoned data and probing intermediate representations across checkpoints, model scales, and question types, we quantify when and how factual beliefs shift. Our findings reveal that even minimal exposure can induce persistent representational drift in well-established facts, with susceptibility varying across layers and model sizes. These results highlight an overlooked vulnerability of continually updated LLMs: their capacity to internalize misinformation analogously to humans, underscoring the need for robust monitoring of factual integrity during model updates.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in software vulnerability detection, yet their reasoning capabilities remain unreliable. We propose R2Vul, a method that combines reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF) and structured reasoning distillation to teach small code LLMs to detect vulnerabilities while generating security-aware explanations. Unlike prior chain-of-thought and instruction tuning approaches, R2Vul rewards well-founded over deceptively plausible vulnerability explanations through RLAIF, which results in more precise detection and high-quality reasoning generation. To support RLAIF, we construct the first multilingual preference dataset for vulnerability detection, comprising 18,000 high-quality samples in C\#, JavaScript, Java, Python, and C. We evaluate R2Vul across five programming languages and against four static analysis tools, eight state-of-the-art LLM-based baselines, and various fine-tuning approaches. Our results demonstrate that a 1.5B R2Vul model exceeds the performance of its 32B teacher model and leading commercial LLMs such as Claude-4-Opus. Furthermore, we introduce a lightweight calibration step that reduces false positive rates under varying imbalanced data distributions. Finally, through qualitative analysis, we show that both LLM and human evaluators consistently rank R2Vul model's reasoning higher than other reasoning-based baselines.

Anonymization is often assumed to protect privacy once explicit identifiers are removed, because re-identification has historically required specialized expertise, tailored algorithms, and manual corroboration. We show that LLM-based agents weaken this barrier: by combining scattered, individually non-identifying cues with public evidence, they reconstruct real-world identities, sometimes even during benign tasks. We evaluate this risk across three settings -- classical linkage incidents, a controlled benchmark (InferLink) that varies fingerprint type, task framing, and attacker knowledge, and open-ended human--AI interaction traces. In the sparsest regime of the Netflix Prize deanonymization setting, agents reconstruct 79.2\% of identities, against 56.0\% for a classical matching baseline; on InferLink, they link individuals even without an explicit re-identification request, and more often once one is given. In redacted human--AI interaction traces, agents further resolve anonymized profiles to specific individuals by corroborating contextual cues with public evidence. These findings suggest that privacy evaluations for agentic systems should measure not only what information is accessed or disclosed, but also what identities can be inferred.

Adversarial examples derived from deliberately crafted perturbations on visual inputs can easily harm decision process of deep neural networks. To prevent potential threats, various adversarial training-based defense methods have grown rapidly and become a de facto standard approach for robustness. Despite recent competitive achievements, we observe that adversarial vulnerability varies across targets and certain vulnerabilities remain prevalent. Intriguingly, such peculiar phenomenon cannot be relieved even with deeper architectures and advanced defense methods. To address this issue, in this paper, we introduce a causal approach called Adversarial Double Machine Learning (ADML), which allows us to quantify the degree of adversarial vulnerability for network predictions and capture the effect of treatments on outcome of interests. ADML can directly estimate causal parameter of adversarial perturbations per se and mitigate negative effects that can potentially damage robustness, bridging a causal perspective into the adversarial vulnerability. Through extensive experiments on various CNN and Transformer architectures, we corroborate that ADML improves adversarial robustness with large margins and relieve the empirical observation.

Large language models (LLMs) have brought significant advancements to code generation and code repair, benefiting both novice and experienced developers. However, their training using unsanitized data from open-source repositories, like GitHub, raises the risk of inadvertently propagating security vulnerabilities. Despite numerous studies investigating the safety of code LLMs, there remains a gap in comprehensively addressing their security features. In this work, we aim to present a comprehensive study aimed at precisely evaluating and enhancing the security aspects of code LLMs. To support our research, we introduce CodeSecEval, a meticulously curated dataset designed to address 44 critical vulnerability types with 180 distinct samples. CodeSecEval serves as the foundation for the automatic evaluation of code models in two crucial tasks: code generation and code repair, with a strong emphasis on security. Our experimental results reveal that current models frequently overlook security issues during both code generation and repair processes, resulting in the creation of vulnerable code. In response, we propose different strategies that leverage vulnerability-aware information and insecure code explanations to mitigate these security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, our findings highlight that certain vulnerability types particularly challenge model performance, influencing their effectiveness in real-world applications. Based on these findings, we believe our study will have a positive impact on the software engineering community, inspiring the development of improved methods for training and utilizing LLMs, thereby leading to safer and more trustworthy model deployment.

Time series forecasting (TSF) increasingly drives decisions in transportation, energy, finance, healthcare, and infrastructure, yet current evaluation remains overly narrow: standard benchmarks reward low held-out error, while robustness studies typically reduce failure to Gaussian noise, random masking, or bounded adversarial perturbations. This obscures the real failure modes of deployed forecasting systems. Input-side anomalies are not merely noisier inputs: they often reflect structured events that alter temporal dynamics, break cross-variable dependencies, induce regime shifts, or propagate from faulty sensors to downstream decisions. These semantic, causal, and system-level failures cannot be faithfully captured by i.i.d. perturbations alone. The rise of TSF foundation models makes this evaluation gap more urgent, as unauditable pretraining corpora make held-out generalization increasingly unreliable. We therefore advocate scenario-grounded stress testing. Each test instance should include historical inputs and future targets, together with a semantic scenario, an explicit failure operator, and a measurable difficulty level. This shift makes evaluation interpretable, attributable, and deployment-relevant and friendly, enabling the community to ask not only which model is accurate, but under what conditions it fails and why.

Time-Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) are rapidly transitioning from research prototypes to core components of critical decision-making systems, driven by their impressive zero-shot forecasting capabilities. However, as their deployment surges, a critical blind spot remains: their fragility under adversarial attacks. This lack of scrutiny poses severe risks, particularly as TSFMs enter high-stakes environments vulnerable to manipulation. We present a systematic, diagnostic study arguing that for TSFMs, robustness is not merely a secondary metric but a prerequisite for trustworthy deployment comparable to accuracy. Our evaluation framework, explicitly tailored to the unique constraints of time series, incorporates normalized, sparsity-aware perturbation budgets and unified scale-invariant metrics across white-box and black-box settings. Across six representative TSFMs, we demonstrate that current architectures are alarmingly brittle: even small perturbations can reliably steer forecasts toward specific failure modes, such as trend flips and malicious drifts. We uncover TSFM-specific vulnerability patterns, including horizon-proximal brittleness, increased susceptibility with longer context windows, and weak cross-model transfer that points to model-specific failure modes rather than generic distortions. Finally, we show that simple adversarial fine-tuning offers a cost-effective path to substantial robustness gains, even with out-of-domain data. This work bridges the gap between TSFM capabilities and safety constraints, offering essential guidance for hardening the next generation of forecasting systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, but remain susceptible to a growing spectrum of safety risks, including jailbreaks, toxic content, hallucinations, and bias. Existing defenses often address only a single threat type or resort to rigid outright rejection, sacrificing user experience and failing to generalize across diverse and novel attacks. This paper introduces Adversarial Scenario Extrapolation (ASE), a novel inference-time computation framework that leverages Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to simultaneously enhance LLM robustness and seamlessness. ASE guides the LLM through a self-generative process of contemplating potential adversarial scenarios and formulating defensive strategies before generating a response to the user query. Comprehensive evaluation on four adversarial benchmarks with four latest LLMs shows that ASE achieves near-zero jailbreak attack success rates and minimal toxicity, while slashing outright rejections to <4%. ASE outperforms six state-of-the-art defenses in robustness-seamlessness trade-offs, with 92-99% accuracy on adversarial Q&A and 4-10x lower bias scores. By transforming adversarial perception into an intrinsic cognitive process, ASE sets a new paradigm for secure and natural human-AI interaction.

This study presents PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth), a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy that occurs under social pressure exerted on users through authority and persuasion in large language models (LLMs) the phenomenon of sycophancy (excessive conformity). PARROT (i) isolates causal effects by comparing the neutral version of the same question with an authoritatively false version using a double-blind evaluation, (ii) quantifies confidence shifts toward the correct and imposed false responses using log-likelihood-based calibration tracking, and (iii) systematically classifies failure modes (e.g., robust correct, sycophantic agreement, reinforced error, stubborn error, self-correction, etc.) using an eight-state behavioral taxonomy. We evaluated 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates. Findings show marked heterogeneity: advanced models (e.g., GPT-5, GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5) exhibit low "follow rates" (leq 11%, GPT-5: 4\%) and minimal accuracy loss, while older/smaller models show severe epistemic collapse (GPT-4: 80\%, Qwen 2.5-1.5B: 94\%). The danger is not limited to response changes; weak models reduce confidence in the correct response while increasing confidence in the imposed incorrect response. While international law and global knowledge at the domain level exhibit high fragility, elementary mathematics is relatively resilient. Consequently, we argue that the goal of "resistance to overfitting pressure" should be addressed as a primary objective alongside accuracy, harm avoidance, and privacy for safe deployment in the real world.

Trustworthy capability evaluations are crucial for ensuring the safety of AI systems, and are becoming a key component of AI regulation. However, the developers of an AI system, or the AI system itself, may have incentives for evaluations to understate the AI's actual capability. These conflicting interests lead to the problem of sandbagging, which we define as strategic underperformance on an evaluation. In this paper we assess sandbagging capabilities in contemporary language models (LMs). We prompt frontier LMs, like GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, to selectively underperform on dangerous capability evaluations, while maintaining performance on general (harmless) capability evaluations. Moreover, we find that models can be fine-tuned, on a synthetic dataset, to hide specific capabilities unless given a password. This behaviour generalizes to high-quality, held-out benchmarks such as WMDP. In addition, we show that both frontier and smaller models can be prompted or password-locked to target specific scores on a capability evaluation. We have mediocre success in password-locking a model to mimic the answers a weaker model would give. Overall, our results suggest that capability evaluations are vulnerable to sandbagging. This vulnerability decreases the trustworthiness of evaluations, and thereby undermines important safety decisions regarding the development and deployment of advanced AI systems.

The Global CVE initiative (GCVE) proposes a decentralized, open, and extensible model for vulnerability identification, publication, and enrichment. It addresses a gap in today's vulnerability ecosystem: centralized systems provide rigorous control and widely recognized identifiers, while many producers publish advisories independently without a shared fabric for discovery, correlation, enrichment, and reuse. This paper presents GCVE as a socio-technical standardization effort combining autonomous GCVE Numbering Authorities, lightweight allocation rules, distributed publication, open Best Current Practices, and practical reference implementations. The model preserves global uniqueness while allowing participants to publish according to their operational needs. It also broadens the concept of a vulnerability record to cover assignments, disclosures, sightings, rejected identifiers, observations, exploited vulnerability information, and enrichment records. The paper describes how the GCVE BCP process supports technical interoperability and amendable operational practice, including practical guidance for vulnerability handling and disclosure. It also examines the extension mechanism, including AI-oriented extensions, as a way to evolve the standard without centralizing control. A particular focus is placed on vulnerability-lookup as the reference implementation. It aggregates multiple sources, supports GCVE publication and consumption, implements distributed Known Exploited Vulnerability data, and enables automatically enriched vulnerability data streams. Building on lessons from the MISP ecosystem, GCVE frames vulnerability coordination not only as identifier allocation, but as open infrastructure for collective security knowledge production.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making, the ability to reliably quantify uncertainty has become a critical requirement for safety and trust. However, current uncertainty quantification methods primarily operate at the output level, often failing to distinguish whether uncertainty arises from the model's lack of knowledge or from ambiguity in the user's input. While input-centric uncertainty quantification has recently emerged as a promising direction, it remains relatively underexplored and typically relies on coarse, input-level information. Consequently, users are provided with scalar uncertainty scores that offer little actionable guidance on which parts of the input should be clarified to improve reliability. To address this limitation, we propose Shapley-based input uncertainty Quantification (ShaQ), a framework for span-level attribution of input-induced uncertainty. Our approach models ambiguous spans in the input as players in a cooperative game and quantifies their contributions using Shapley values, defined via the weighted average of marginal reductions in conditional entropy obtained by clarifying each span coalition. Unlike existing input-level approaches, our formulation captures complex interactions among spans and provides a principled decomposition in which individual attributions sum exactly to the total input-induced uncertainty. We evaluate ShaQ on the AmbigQA and AmbiEnt benchmarks, where it achieves state-of-the-art performance in ambiguity detection. We further demonstrate its utility on MediTOD, showing that ShaQ can localize under-specified clinical utterances and facilitate human-AI collaboration in high-stakes settings. Overall, ShaQ improves uncertainty estimation and provides actionable insights for targeted input clarification.

Reliable probability estimation is of crucial importance in many real-world applications where there is inherent (aleatoric) uncertainty. Probability-estimation models are trained on observed outcomes (e.g. whether it has rained or not, or whether a patient has died or not), because the ground-truth probabilities of the events of interest are typically unknown. The problem is therefore analogous to binary classification, with the difference that the objective is to estimate probabilities rather than predicting the specific outcome. This work investigates probability estimation from high-dimensional data using deep neural networks. There exist several methods to improve the probabilities generated by these models but they mostly focus on model (epistemic) uncertainty. For problems with inherent uncertainty, it is challenging to evaluate performance without access to ground-truth probabilities. To address this, we build a synthetic dataset to study and compare different computable metrics. We evaluate existing methods on the synthetic data as well as on three real-world probability estimation tasks, all of which involve inherent uncertainty: precipitation forecasting from radar images, predicting cancer patient survival from histopathology images, and predicting car crashes from dashcam videos. We also give a theoretical analysis of a model for high-dimensional probability estimation which reproduces several of the phenomena evinced in our experiments. Finally, we propose a new method for probability estimation using neural networks, which modifies the training process to promote output probabilities that are consistent with empirical probabilities computed from the data. The method outperforms existing approaches on most metrics on the simulated as well as real-world data.

Safety-aligned large language models are trained to refuse harmful requests, yet embedding the same requests in particular scenarios can bypass their safeguards. Existing red-teaming methods empirically identify effective scenarios through observed attack outcomes, but why particular scenarios weaken refusal remains mechanistically unclear. Meanwhile, mechanistic interpretability studies have characterized both refusal directions and jailbreak-associated features, without explaining the relationship between the two representations. In this work, we show that scenario-wrapped prompts activate internal scenario directions whose causal steering consistently reduces refusal scores. Building on this finding, we propose Concept2Scenario, a concept-based attribution framework for vulnerable scenario discovery. It instantiates a broad concept space with a sparse autoencoder, attributes refusal suppression to individual concepts, translates the identified concepts into interpretable natural-language scenarios, and identifies synergistic scenario combinations through interaction attribution. Across three open-source models, two safety benchmarks, and six black-box jailbreak methods, the discovered scenarios serve as reusable priors that improve average attack success rates by up to 18.2 percentage points. They also transfer to GPT-5, Claude-Haiku-4.5, and Gemini-3-Flash, suggesting that some scenario-level refusal vulnerabilities are shared across model families. Moreover, the identified combinations outperform their individual constituents and enable iterative attacks to succeed in fewer turns.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where rare but severe failures can result in irreversible harm. However, prevailing evaluation benchmarks often reduce complex social risk to mean-centered scalar scores, thereby obscuring distributional structure, cross-dimensional interactions, and worst-case behavior. This paper introduces Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles (SHARP), a framework for multidimensional, distribution-aware evaluation of social harm. SHARP models harm as a multivariate random variable and integrates explicit decomposition into bias, fairness, ethics, and epistemic reliability with a union-of-failures aggregation reparameterized as additive cumulative log-risk. The framework further employs risk-sensitive distributional statistics, with Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR95) as a primary metric, to characterize worst-case model behavior. Application of SHARP to eleven frontier LLMs, evaluated on a fixed corpus of n=901 socially sensitive prompts, reveals that models with similar average risk can exhibit more than twofold differences in tail exposure and volatility. Across models, dimension-wise marginal tail behavior varies systematically across harm dimensions, with bias exhibiting the strongest tail severities, epistemic and fairness risks occupying intermediate regimes, and ethical misalignment consistently lower; together, these patterns reveal heterogeneous, model-dependent failure structures that scalar benchmarks conflate. These findings indicate that responsible evaluation and governance of LLMs require moving beyond scalar averages toward multidimensional, tail-sensitive risk profiling.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in critical domains, where their susceptibility to hallucinations makes reliable and interpretable uncertainty quantification essential. We introduce the concept of mechanistic uncertainty, which characterizes uncertainty through the stability of the internal mechanisms supporting a model's response. We propose the causal robustness margin, defined as the minimum internal intervention required to deviate the model's output, and operationalize it using Jacobian Lens (Jlens) concept steering vectors. Across three open-source models and five question-answering datasets, we show incorrect and uncertain responses exhibit smaller margins, indicating greater sensitivity to internal interventions, and the causal robustness margin complements conventional output-based uncertainty methods. Finally, in a controlled knowledge injection experiment, correctly learned facts show increased margins after training, suggesting that causal robustness provides a mechanistically grounded signal of uncertainty.

Recognizing vulnerability is crucial for understanding and implementing targeted support to empower individuals in need. This is especially important at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), where the court adapts Convention standards to meet actual individual needs and thus ensures effective human rights protection. However, the concept of vulnerability remains elusive at the ECtHR and no prior NLP research has dealt with it. To enable future research in this area, we present VECHR, a novel expert-annotated multi-label dataset comprising of vulnerability type classification and explanation rationale. We benchmark the performance of state-of-the-art models on VECHR from both prediction and explainability perspectives. Our results demonstrate the challenging nature of the task with lower prediction performance and limited agreement between models and experts. Further, we analyze the robustness of these models in dealing with out-of-domain (OOD) data and observe overall limited performance. Our dataset poses unique challenges offering significant room for improvement regarding performance, explainability, and robustness.

Although LLMs have shown promising potential in vulnerability detection, this study reveals their limitations in distinguishing between vulnerable and similar-but-benign patched code (only 0.06 - 0.14 accuracy). It shows that LLMs struggle to capture the root causes of vulnerabilities during vulnerability detection. To address this challenge, we propose enhancing LLMs with multi-dimensional vulnerability knowledge distilled from historical vulnerabilities and fixes. We design a novel knowledge-level Retrieval-Augmented Generation framework Vul-RAG, which improves LLMs with an accuracy increase of 16% - 24% in identifying vulnerable and patched code. Additionally, vulnerability knowledge generated by Vul-RAG can further (1) serve as high-quality explanations to improve manual detection accuracy (from 60% to 77%), and (2) detect 10 previously-unknown bugs in the recent Linux kernel release with 6 assigned CVEs.

Recent advances in reinforcement learning (RL) have led to substantial improvements in the mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs, as measured by standard benchmarks. Yet these gains often persist even when models are trained with flawed signals, such as random or inverted rewards. This raises a fundamental question: do such improvements reflect genuine reasoning, or are they merely artifacts of overfitting to benchmark-specific patterns? To answer this question, we adopt an evaluation-centric perspective and highlight two critical shortcomings in existing protocols. First, benchmark contamination arises because test problems are publicly available, thereby increasing the risk of data leakage. Second, evaluation fragility results from reliance on single-instance assessments, which are sensitive to stochastic outputs and fail to capture reasoning consistency. These limitations suggest the need for a new evaluation paradigm that can probe reasoning ability beyond memorization and one-off success. As response, we propose VAR-MATH, a symbolic evaluation framework that converts fixed numerical problems into parameterized templates and requires models to solve multiple instantiations of each. This design enforces consistency across structurally equivalent variants, mitigates contamination, and enhances robustness through bootstrapped metrics. We apply VAR-MATH to transform three popular benchmarks, AMC23, AIME24, and AIME25, into their symbolic counterparts, VAR-AMC23, VAR-AIME24, and VAR-AIME25. Experimental results show substantial performance drops for RL-trained models on these variabilized benchmarks, especially for smaller models, with average declines of 47.9\% on AMC23, 58.8\% on AIME24, and 72.9\% on AIME25. These findings indicate that some existing RL methods rely on superficial heuristics and fail to generalize beyond specific numerical forms.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have recently extended their powerful reasoning capabilities to safety checks-using chain-of-thought reasoning to decide whether a request should be answered. While this new approach offers a promising route for balancing model utility and safety, its robustness remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce Malicious-Educator, a benchmark that disguises extremely dangerous or malicious requests beneath seemingly legitimate educational prompts. Our experiments reveal severe security flaws in popular commercial-grade LRMs, including OpenAI o1/o3, DeepSeek-R1, and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking. For instance, although OpenAI's o1 model initially maintains a high refusal rate of about 98%, subsequent model updates significantly compromise its safety; and attackers can easily extract criminal strategies from DeepSeek-R1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking without any additional tricks. To further highlight these vulnerabilities, we propose Hijacking Chain-of-Thought (H-CoT), a universal and transferable attack method that leverages the model's own displayed intermediate reasoning to jailbreak its safety reasoning mechanism. Under H-CoT, refusal rates sharply decline-dropping from 98% to below 2%-and, in some instances, even transform initially cautious tones into ones that are willing to provide harmful content. We hope these findings underscore the urgent need for more robust safety mechanisms to preserve the benefits of advanced reasoning capabilities without compromising ethical standards.

We conduct experiments on the impact of increasing inference-time compute in reasoning models (specifically OpenAI o1-preview and o1-mini) on their robustness to adversarial attacks. We find that across a variety of attacks, increased inference-time compute leads to improved robustness. In many cases (with important exceptions), the fraction of model samples where the attack succeeds tends to zero as the amount of test-time compute grows. We perform no adversarial training for the tasks we study, and we increase inference-time compute by simply allowing the models to spend more compute on reasoning, independently of the form of attack. Our results suggest that inference-time compute has the potential to improve adversarial robustness for Large Language Models. We also explore new attacks directed at reasoning models, as well as settings where inference-time compute does not improve reliability, and speculate on the reasons for these as well as ways to address them.

A common assumption holds that enough observational and interventional data, given to a strong enough predictor, suffices. We report a failure mode that contradicts it. Across hundreds of structural causal models, on identified quantities a strong predictor and a Bayesian baseline both succeed, but on unidentified quantities (the couplings between counterfactual worlds) the predictor collapses to a point, on 28% of models to one no valid model can produce, while the truth is an admissible interval more data never narrows. The gap is structural: prediction cannot represent uncertainty over counterfactual couplings. We cast a world model as a single positive semidefinite coupling kernel K(T,T') over admissible worlds, whose diagonal is the ordinary posterior (what a predictor recovers) and whose off-diagonal is the cross-world coupling it cannot, which every counterfactual reads. The paper is the theory of that off-diagonal. It is real: two states with identical posteriors differ on a cross-world query, and the off-diagonal is the coupling that fixes counterfactuals. It can be bounded: positive semidefiniteness is partial-identifying information the marginals lack, and enforcing it bounds counterfactuals in polynomial time where the exact response-type program is intractable. Logical structure sharpens it: ontology axioms tighten the bound by up to a third, propagating to couplings they never touch. It can be acquired: targeted scars, constraints learned from encountered infeasibilities, close the gap several times faster than untargeted ones. Its full reconstruction is approximate counting of the admissible worlds, tractable below the Sly-Sun threshold and inapproximable above; we do not claim to beat the worst case.

Software vulnerability detection has emerged as a significant concern in the field of software security recently, capturing the attention of numerous researchers and developers. Most previous approaches focus on coarse-grained vulnerability detection, such as at the function or file level. However, the developers would still encounter the challenge of manually inspecting a large volume of code inside the vulnerable function to identify the specific vulnerable statements for modification, indicating the importance of vulnerability localization. Training the model for vulnerability localization usually requires ground-truth labels at the statement-level, and labeling vulnerable statements demands expert knowledge, which incurs high costs. Hence, the demand for an approach that eliminates the need for additional labeling at the statement-level is on the rise. To tackle this problem, we propose a novel approach called WAVES for WeAkly supervised Vulnerability Localization via multiplE inStance learning, which does not need the additional statement-level labels during the training. WAVES has the capability to determine whether a function is vulnerable (i.e., vulnerability detection) and pinpoint the vulnerable statements (i.e., vulnerability localization). Specifically, inspired by the concept of multiple instance learning, WAVES converts the ground-truth label at the function-level into pseudo labels for individual statements, eliminating the need for additional statement-level labeling. These pseudo labels are utilized to train the classifiers for the function-level representation vectors. Extensive experimentation on three popular benchmark datasets demonstrates that, in comparison to previous baselines, our approach achieves comparable performance in vulnerability detection and state-of-the-art performance in statement-level vulnerability localization.

Traditional vulnerability detection methods rely heavily on predefined rule matching, which often fails to capture vulnerabilities accurately. With the rise of large language models (LLMs), leveraging their ability to understand code semantics has emerged as a promising direction for achieving more accurate and efficient vulnerability detection. However, current LLM-based approaches face significant challenges: instability in model outputs, limitations in context length, and hallucination. As a result, many existing solutions either use LLMs merely to enrich predefined rule sets, thereby keeping the detection process fundamentally rule-based, or over-rely on them, leading to poor robustness. To address these challenges, we propose a constraint-solving approach powered by LLMs named VULSOLVER. By modeling vulnerability detection as a constraint-solving problem, and by integrating static application security testing (SAST) with the semantic reasoning capabilities of LLMs, our method enables the LLM to act like a professional human security expert. We assess VULSOLVER on the OWASP Benchmark (1,023 labeled samples), achieving 96.29% accuracy, 96.55% F1-score, and 100% recall. Applied to popular GitHub repositories, VULSOLVER also identified 15 previously unknown high-severity vulnerabilities (CVSS 7.5-9.8), demonstrating its effectiveness in real-world security analysis.

We explore uncertainty quantification in large language models (LLMs), with the goal to identify when uncertainty in responses given a query is large. We simultaneously consider both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, where the former comes from the lack of knowledge about the ground truth (such as about facts or the language), and the latter comes from irreducible randomness (such as multiple possible answers). In particular, we derive an information-theoretic metric that allows to reliably detect when only epistemic uncertainty is large, in which case the output of the model is unreliable. This condition can be computed based solely on the output of the model obtained simply by some special iterative prompting based on the previous responses. Such quantification, for instance, allows to detect hallucinations (cases when epistemic uncertainty is high) in both single- and multi-answer responses. This is in contrast to many standard uncertainty quantification strategies (such as thresholding the log-likelihood of a response) where hallucinations in the multi-answer case cannot be detected. We conduct a series of experiments which demonstrate the advantage of our formulation. Further, our investigations shed some light on how the probabilities assigned to a given output by an LLM can be amplified by iterative prompting, which might be of independent interest.

Automated detection of vulnerabilities in source code is an essential cybersecurity challenge, underpinning trust in digital systems and services. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as a promising approach as they can learn structural and logical code relationships in a data-driven manner. However, their performance is severely constrained by training data imbalances and label noise. GNNs often learn 'spurious' correlations from superficial code similarities, producing detectors that fail to generalize well to unseen real-world data. In this work, we propose a unified framework for robust and interpretable vulnerability detection, called VISION, to mitigate spurious correlations by systematically augmenting a counterfactual training dataset. Counterfactuals are samples with minimal semantic modifications but opposite labels. Our framework includes: (i) generating counterfactuals by prompting a Large Language Model (LLM); (ii) targeted GNN training on paired code examples with opposite labels; and (iii) graph-based interpretability to identify the crucial code statements relevant for vulnerability predictions while ignoring spurious ones. We find that VISION reduces spurious learning and enables more robust, generalizable detection, improving overall accuracy (from 51.8% to 97.8%), pairwise contrast accuracy (from 4.5% to 95.8%), and worst-group accuracy (from 0.7% to 85.5%) on the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)-20 vulnerability. We further demonstrate gains using proposed metrics: intra-class attribution variance, inter-class attribution distance, and node score dependency. We also release CWE-20-CFA, a benchmark of 27,556 functions (real and counterfactual) from the high-impact CWE-20 category. Finally, VISION advances transparent and trustworthy AI-based cybersecurity systems through interactive visualization for human-in-the-loop analysis.

The safety of large language models (LLMs) has garnered significant research attention. In this paper, we argue that previous empirical studies demonstrate LLMs exhibit a propensity to trust information from authoritative sources, such as academic papers, implying new possible vulnerabilities. To verify this possibility, a preliminary analysis is designed to illustrate our two findings. Based on this insight, a novel jailbreaking method, Paper Summary Attack (PSA), is proposed. It systematically synthesizes content from either attack-focused or defense-focused LLM safety paper to construct an adversarial prompt template, while strategically infilling harmful query as adversarial payloads within predefined subsections. Extensive experiments show significant vulnerabilities not only in base LLMs, but also in state-of-the-art reasoning model like Deepseek-R1. PSA achieves a 97\% attack success rate (ASR) on well-aligned models like Claude3.5-Sonnet and an even higher 98\% ASR on Deepseek-R1. More intriguingly, our work has further revealed diametrically opposed vulnerability bias across different base models, and even between different versions of the same model, when exposed to either attack-focused or defense-focused papers. This phenomenon potentially indicates future research clues for both adversarial methodologies and safety alignment.Code is available at https://github.com/233liang/Paper-Summary-Attack

Identifying vulnerability-fixing commits corresponding to disclosed CVEs is essential for secure software maintenance but remains challenging at scale, as large repositories contain millions of commits of which only a small fraction address security issues. Existing automated approaches, including traditional machine learning techniques and recent large language model (LLM)-based methods, often suffer from poor precision-recall trade-offs. Frequently evaluated on randomly sampled commits, we uncover that they are substantially underestimating real-world difficulty, where candidate commits are already security-relevant and highly similar. We propose Favia, a forensic, agent-based framework for vulnerability-fix identification that combines scalable candidate ranking with deep and iterative semantic reasoning. Favia first employs an efficient ranking stage to narrow the search space of commits. Each commit is then rigorously evaluated using a ReAct-based LLM agent. By providing the agent with a pre-commit repository as environment, along with specialized tools, the agent tries to localize vulnerable components, navigates the codebase, and establishes causal alignment between code changes and vulnerability root causes. This evidence-driven process enables robust identification of indirect, multi-file, and non-trivial fixes that elude single-pass or similarity-based methods. We evaluate Favia on CVEVC, a large-scale dataset we made that comprises over 8 million commits from 3,708 real-world repositories, and show that it consistently outperforms state-of-the-art traditional and LLM-based baselines under realistic candidate selection, achieving the strongest precision-recall trade-offs and highest F1-scores.

This paper provides a systematic analysis of the opportunities, challenges, and potential solutions of harnessing Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 to dig out vulnerabilities within smart contracts based on our ongoing research. For the task of smart contract vulnerability detection, achieving practical usability hinges on identifying as many true vulnerabilities as possible while minimizing the number of false positives. Nonetheless, our empirical study reveals contradictory yet interesting findings: generating more answers with higher randomness largely boosts the likelihood of producing a correct answer but inevitably leads to a higher number of false positives. To mitigate this tension, we propose an adversarial framework dubbed GPTLens that breaks the conventional one-stage detection into two synergistic stages - generation and discrimination, for progressive detection and refinement, wherein the LLM plays dual roles, i.e., auditor and critic, respectively. The goal of auditor is to yield a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities with the hope of encompassing the correct answer, whereas the goal of critic that evaluates the validity of identified vulnerabilities is to minimize the number of false positives. Experimental results and illustrative examples demonstrate that auditor and critic work together harmoniously to yield pronounced improvements over the conventional one-stage detection. GPTLens is intuitive, strategic, and entirely LLM-driven without relying on specialist expertise in smart contracts, showcasing its methodical generality and potential to detect a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities. Our code is available at: https://github.com/git-disl/GPTLens.

Large language model (LLM)-based conversational AI systems present a challenge to human cognition that current frameworks for understanding misinformation and persuasion do not adequately address. This paper proposes that a significant epistemic risk from conversational AI may lie not in inaccuracy or intentional deception, but in something more fundamental: these systems may be configured, through optimization processes that make them useful, to present characteristics that bypass the cognitive mechanisms humans evolved to evaluate incoming information. The Cognitive Trojan Horse hypothesis draws on Sperber and colleagues' theory of epistemic vigilance -- the parallel cognitive process monitoring communicated information for reasons to doubt -- and proposes that LLM-based systems present 'honest non-signals': genuine characteristics (fluency, helpfulness, apparent disinterest) that fail to carry the information equivalent human characteristics would carry, because in humans these are costly to produce while in LLMs they are computationally trivial. Four mechanisms of potential bypass are identified: processing fluency decoupled from understanding, trust-competence presentation without corresponding stakes, cognitive offloading that delegates evaluation itself to the AI, and optimization dynamics that systematically produce sycophancy. The framework generates testable predictions, including a counterintuitive speculation that cognitively sophisticated users may be more vulnerable to AI-mediated epistemic influence. This reframes AI safety as partly a problem of calibration -- aligning human evaluative responses with the actual epistemic status of AI-generated content -- rather than solely a problem of preventing deception.

Recent progress in ML and LLMs has improved vulnerability detection, and recent datasets have reduced label noise and unrelated code changes. However, most existing approaches still operate at the function level, where models are asked to predict whether a single function is vulnerable without inter-procedural context. In practice, vulnerability presence and root cause often depend on contextual information. Naively appending such context is not a reliable solution: real-world context is long, redundant, and noisy, and we find that unstructured context frequently degrades the performance of strong fine-tuned code models. We present CPRVul, a context-aware vulnerability detection framework that couples Context Profiling and Selection with Structured Reasoning. CPRVul constructs a code property graph, and extracts candidate context. It then uses an LLM to generate security-focused profiles and assign relevance scores, selecting only high-impact contextual elements that fit within the model's context window. In the second phase, CPRVul integrates the target function, the selected context, and auxiliary vulnerability metadata to generate reasoning traces, which are used to fine-tune LLMs for reasoning-based vulnerability detection. We evaluate CPRVul on three high-quality vulnerability datasets: PrimeVul, TitanVul, and CleanVul. Across all datasets, CPRVul consistently outperforms function-only baselines, achieving accuracies ranging from 64.94% to 73.76%, compared to 56.65% to 63.68% for UniXcoder. Specifically, on the challenging PrimeVul benchmark, CPRVul achieves 67.78% accuracy, outperforming prior state-of-the-art approaches, improving accuracy from 55.17% to 67.78% (22.9% improvement). Our ablations further show that neither raw context nor processed context alone benefits strong code models; gains emerge only when processed context is paired with structured reasoning.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are inclined explore Small Language Models (SLMs) as edge-native constitutional firewalls to vet proposals and mitigate semantic social engineering. While scaling inference-time compute (System 2) enhances formal logic, its efficacy in highly adversarial, cryptoeconomic governance environments remains underexplored. To address this, we introduce Sentinel-Bench, an 840-inference empirical framework executing a strict intra-model ablation on Qwen-3.5-9B. By toggling latent reasoning across frozen weights, we isolate the impact of inference-time compute against an adversarial Optimism DAO dataset. Our findings reveal a severe compute-accuracy inversion. The autoregressive baseline (System 1) achieved 100% adversarial robustness, 100% juridical consistency, and state finality in under 13 seconds. Conversely, System 2 reasoning introduced catastrophic instability, fundamentally driven by a 26.7% Reasoning Non-Convergence (cognitive collapse) rate. This collapse degraded trial-to-trial consensus stability to 72.6% and imposed a 17x latency overhead, introducing critical vulnerabilities to Governance Extractable Value (GEV) and hardware centralization. While rare (1.5% of adversarial trials), we empirically captured "Reasoning-Induced Sycophancy," where the model generated significantly longer internal monologues (averaging 25,750 characters) to rationalize failing the adversarial trap. We conclude that for edge-native SLMs operating under Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) constraints, System 1 parameterized intuition is structurally and economically superior to System 2 iterative deliberation for decentralized consensus. Code and Dataset: https://github.com/smarizvi110/sentinel-bench

The Internet of Value (IoV) is a heterogeneous, partially-trusted network in which the dominant marginal risk is composite (route, sentiment, liquidity, and the policy a system is willing to commit to) rather than a property of any single chain. We argue that a risk primitive adequate for this regime is a composition of five engines: a prediction engine over price, liquidity, volatility, and route health; a Bittensor verification subnet that decentralises and economically scores prediction outputs; a sentiment-fusion engine over text, on-chain flow, and grey-literature feeds; an agentic engine under constitutional, role-bound action constraints; and an API-risk and scenario engine that converts forecasts into pre-committed action programs in the sense of Monte-Carlo scenario generation. We anchor the architecture in two empirical artefacts: a 27-hour policy-constrained liquidity stress-response experiment on Solana, and a 168-hour prediction-router calibration arc reported with explicit class-imbalance honesty. The case study supports deployability; the validator-loss decomposition is stated formally and is falsifiable.

Failures in multi-turn reasoning models are largely invisible to terminal-score evaluation. A model can lock onto an unsafe stance early in a long dialogue, yet its final-turn refusal rate may appear indistinguishable from a robustly aligned baseline. To expose these hidden temporal dynamics, we propose a trace-level diagnostic - the CoT-Output 2x2 safety matrix. This framework labels every turn along two independent axes (internal reasoning and visible output), yielding four operationally defined failure cells: robust alignment, alignment faking, overt jailbreak, and a distinct failure mode we term context-injection failure (where the CoT maintains safe reasoning, but the visible output produces harm, highlighting a multi-turn manifestation of reasoning unfaithfulness). We evaluate three distilled reasoning targets against a fixed attacker across five oversight conditions, collecting 6750 turn-level observations on the Information-Hazard scenario. Our analysis reveals two reproducible vulnerabilities: an oversight paradox where explicit monitoring cues paradoxically increase alignment-faking rates rather than suppress them, and a context-injection failure where models lock onto unsafe external outputs despite safe internal states. We release the full dataset of multi-turn dialogues and CoT traces to support follow-up trace-diagnostic research.

Studies of bias in LLM-as-judge systems typically build synthetic corpora by prompting an LLM to generate a hallucinated answer to pair with a factual one, then presenting both to a judge. We report a case in which this generation step silently failed, and use it to argue that the failure mode is structural rather than incidental. In a multilingual (Turkish/English) faithfulness-judgment corpus, a decoding-budget parameter shared between judging and generation calls truncated one producer's hallucinated answers to a few words. The resulting items produced a large, statistically robust effect: a 32-point cross-lingual collapse in one judge's selection accuracy, replicated from N=50 to N=500, explained by a three-layer mechanistic account, and confirmed by a controlled producer-swap experiment, none of which was real. The effect vanished to ceiling once the shared parameter was corrected, and only manual reading of the raw generations, not any aggregate statistical check, exposed the fault. A second measured bias (Markdown-formatting preference) was not fabricated but distorted by the same fault, its magnitude and in one case its sign shifting with stimulus length, a mode aggregate metrics cannot distinguish from the first. We frame the underlying vulnerability using the test oracle problem: corpora whose negative examples are LLM-generated carry no mechanical way to verify item integrity, while corpora built by deterministic perturbation of a gold answer carry an item-level oracle for free. A positive control supports this claim directly: an analogous fault injected into a minimal perturbation-based corpus is caught with 100% accuracy by a zero-cost, zero-human gold-to-negative string comparison. We close with a validation protocol, derived from our own case, for analysts working in the oracle-less regime that we argue describes most contemporary multilingual LLM-as-judge corpora.

Harmful fine-tuning poses critical safety risks to fine-tuning-as-a-service for large language models. Existing defense strategies preemptively build robustness via attack simulation but suffer from fundamental limitations: (i) the infeasibility of extending attack simulations beyond bounded threat models due to the inherent difficulty of anticipating unknown attacks, and (ii) limited adaptability to varying attack settings, as simulation fails to capture their variability and complexity. To address these challenges, we propose Bayesian Data Scheduler (BDS), an adaptive tuning-stage defense strategy with no need for attack simulation. BDS formulates harmful fine-tuning defense as a Bayesian inference problem, learning the posterior distribution of each data point's safety attribute, conditioned on the fine-tuning and alignment datasets. The fine-tuning process is then constrained by weighting data with their safety attributes sampled from the posterior, thus mitigating the influence of harmful data. By leveraging the post hoc nature of Bayesian inference, the posterior is conditioned on the fine-tuning dataset, enabling BDS to tailor its defense to the specific dataset, thereby achieving adaptive defense. Furthermore, we introduce a neural scheduler based on amortized Bayesian learning, enabling efficient transfer to new data without retraining. Comprehensive results across diverse attack and defense settings demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of our approach. Code is available at https://github.com/Egg-Hu/Bayesian-Data-Scheduler.

A prominent challenge of offline reinforcement learning (RL) is the issue of hidden confounding: unobserved variables may influence both the actions taken by the agent and the observed outcomes. Hidden confounding can compromise the validity of any causal conclusion drawn from data and presents a major obstacle to effective offline RL. In the present paper, we tackle the problem of hidden confounding in the nonidentifiable setting. We propose a definition of uncertainty due to hidden confounding bias, termed delphic uncertainty, which uses variation over world models compatible with the observations, and differentiate it from the well-known epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties. We derive a practical method for estimating the three types of uncertainties, and construct a pessimistic offline RL algorithm to account for them. Our method does not assume identifiability of the unobserved confounders, and attempts to reduce the amount of confounding bias. We demonstrate through extensive experiments and ablations the efficacy of our approach on a sepsis management benchmark, as well as on electronic health records. Our results suggest that nonidentifiable hidden confounding bias can be mitigated to improve offline RL solutions in practice.

Software is prone to security vulnerabilities. Program analysis tools to detect them have limited effectiveness in practice due to their reliance on human labeled specifications. Large language models (or LLMs) have shown impressive code generation capabilities but they cannot do complex reasoning over code to detect such vulnerabilities especially since this task requires whole-repository analysis. We propose IRIS, a neuro-symbolic approach that systematically combines LLMs with static analysis to perform whole-repository reasoning for security vulnerability detection. Specifically, IRIS leverages LLMs to infer taint specifications and perform contextual analysis, alleviating needs for human specifications and inspection. For evaluation, we curate a new dataset, CWE-Bench-Java, comprising 120 manually validated security vulnerabilities in real-world Java projects. A state-of-the-art static analysis tool CodeQL detects only 27 of these vulnerabilities whereas IRIS with GPT-4 detects 55 (+28) and improves upon CodeQL's average false discovery rate by 5% points. Furthermore, IRIS identifies 4 previously unknown vulnerabilities which cannot be found by existing tools. IRIS is available publicly at https://github.com/iris-sast/iris.

Quantitative risk assessment in high-stakes domains relies on structured expert elicitation to estimate unobservable properties. The gold standard - the Delphi method - produces calibrated, auditable judgments but requires months of coordination and specialist time, placing rigorous risk assessment out of reach for most applications. We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as scalable proxies for structured expert elicitation. We propose Scalable Delphi, adapting the classical protocol for LLMs with diverse expert personas, iterative refinement, and rationale sharing. Because target quantities are typically unobservable, we develop an evaluation framework based on necessary conditions: calibration against verifiable proxies, sensitivity to evidence, and alignment with human expert judgment. We evaluate in the domain of AI-augmented cybersecurity risk, using three capability benchmarks and independent human elicitation studies. LLM panels achieve strong correlations with benchmark ground truth (Pearson r=0.87-0.95), improve systematically as evidence is added, and align with human expert panels - in one comparison, closer to a human panel than the two human panels are to each other. This demonstrates that LLM-based elicitation can extend structured expert judgment to settings where traditional methods are infeasible, reducing elicitation time from months to minutes.

Given only observational data X = g(Z), where both the latent variables Z and the generating process g are unknown, recovering Z is ill-posed without additional assumptions. Existing methods often assume linearity or rely on auxiliary supervision and functional constraints. However, such assumptions are rarely verifiable in practice, and most theoretical guarantees break down under even mild violations, leaving uncertainty about how to reliably understand the hidden world. To make identifiability actionable in the real-world scenarios, we take a complementary view: in the general settings where full identifiability is unattainable, what can still be recovered with guarantees, and what biases could be universally adopted? We introduce the problem of diverse dictionary learning to formalize this view. Specifically, we show that intersections, complements, and symmetric differences of latent variables linked to arbitrary observations, along with the latent-to-observed dependency structure, are still identifiable up to appropriate indeterminacies even without strong assumptions. These set-theoretic results can be composed using set algebra to construct structured and essential views of the hidden world, such as genus-differentia definitions. When sufficient structural diversity is present, they further imply full identifiability of all latent variables. Notably, all identifiability benefits follow from a simple inductive bias during estimation that can be readily integrated into most models. We validate the theory and demonstrate the benefits of the bias on both synthetic and real-world data.

In the context of the rising interest in code language models (code LMs) and vulnerability detection, we study the effectiveness of code LMs for detecting vulnerabilities. Our analysis reveals significant shortcomings in existing vulnerability datasets, including poor data quality, low label accuracy, and high duplication rates, leading to unreliable model performance in realistic vulnerability detection scenarios. Additionally, the evaluation methods used with these datasets are not representative of real-world vulnerability detection. To address these challenges, we introduce PrimeVul, a new dataset for training and evaluating code LMs for vulnerability detection. PrimeVul incorporates a novel set of data labeling techniques that achieve comparable label accuracy to human-verified benchmarks while significantly expanding the dataset. It also implements a rigorous data de-duplication and chronological data splitting strategy to mitigate data leakage issues, alongside introducing more realistic evaluation metrics and settings. This comprehensive approach aims to provide a more accurate assessment of code LMs' performance in real-world conditions. Evaluating code LMs on PrimeVul reveals that existing benchmarks significantly overestimate the performance of these models. For instance, a state-of-the-art 7B model scored 68.26% F1 on BigVul but only 3.09% F1 on PrimeVul. Attempts to improve performance through advanced training techniques and larger models like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 were unsuccessful, with results akin to random guessing in the most stringent settings. These findings underscore the considerable gap between current capabilities and the practical requirements for deploying code LMs in security roles, highlighting the need for more innovative research in this domain.

We propose VulnLLM-R, the~first specialized reasoning LLM for vulnerability detection. Our key insight is that LLMs can reason about program states and analyze the potential vulnerabilities, rather than simple pattern matching. This can improve the model's generalizability and prevent learning shortcuts. However, SOTA reasoning LLMs are typically ultra-large, closed-source, or have limited performance in vulnerability detection. To address this, we propose a novel training recipe with specialized data selection, reasoning data generation, reasoning data filtering and correction, and testing-phase optimization. Using our proposed methodology, we train a reasoning model with seven billion parameters. Through extensive experiments on SOTA datasets across Python, C/C++, and Java, we show that VulnLLM-R has superior effectiveness and efficiency than SOTA static analysis tools and both open-source and commercial large reasoning models. We further conduct a detailed ablation study to validate the key designs in our training recipe. Finally, we construct an agent scaffold around our model and show that it outperforms CodeQL and AFL++ in real-world projects. Our agent further discovers a set of zero-day vulnerabilities in actively maintained repositories. This work represents a pioneering effort to enable real-world, project-level vulnerability detection using AI agents powered by specialized reasoning models. The code is available at~https://github.com/ucsb-mlsec/VulnLLM-R{github}.

Correctly evaluating defenses against adversarial examples has proven to be extremely difficult. Despite the significant amount of recent work attempting to design defenses that withstand adaptive attacks, few have succeeded; most papers that propose defenses are quickly shown to be incorrect. We believe a large contributing factor is the difficulty of performing security evaluations. In this paper, we discuss the methodological foundations, review commonly accepted best practices, and suggest new methods for evaluating defenses to adversarial examples. We hope that both researchers developing defenses as well as readers and reviewers who wish to understand the completeness of an evaluation consider our advice in order to avoid common pitfalls.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized generative systems, achieving excellent performance across diverse domains. Although these models perform well in controlled environments, their real-world applications frequently encounter inputs containing both essential and irrelevant details. Our investigation has revealed a critical vulnerability in LLMs, which we term Contextual Distraction Vulnerability (CDV). This phenomenon arises when models fail to maintain consistent performance on questions modified with semantically coherent but irrelevant context. To systematically investigate this vulnerability, we propose an efficient tree-based search methodology to automatically generate CDV examples. Our approach successfully generates CDV examples across four datasets, causing an average performance degradation of approximately 45% in state-of-the-art LLMs. To address this critical issue, we explore various mitigation strategies and find that post-targeted training approaches can effectively enhance model robustness against contextual distractions. Our findings highlight the fundamental nature of CDV as an ability-level challenge rather than a knowledge-level issue since models demonstrate the necessary knowledge by answering correctly in the absence of distractions. This calls the community's attention to address CDV during model development to ensure reliability. The code is available at https://github.com/wyf23187/LLM_CDV.

Automated vulnerability detection research has made substantial progress, yet its real-world impact remains limited. Prior work found that current vulnerability datasets suffer from issues including label inaccuracy rates of 20%-71%, extensive duplication, and poor coverage of critical Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE). These issues create a significant generalization gap where models achieve misleading In-Distribution (ID) accuracies (testing on splits from the same dataset) by exploiting spurious correlations rather than learning true vulnerability patterns. To address these limitations, we present a three-part solution. First, we introduce BenchVul, which is a manually curated and balanced test dataset covering the MITRE Top 25 Most Dangerous CWEs, to enable fair model evaluation. Second, we construct a high-quality training dataset, TitanVul, comprising 38,548 functions by aggregating seven public sources and applying deduplication and validation using a novel multi-agent LLM pipeline. Third, we propose a Realistic Vulnerability Generation (RVG) pipeline, which synthesizes context-aware vulnerability examples for underrepresented but critical CWE types through simulated development workflows. Our evaluation reveals that In-Distribution (ID) performance does not reliably predict Out-of-Distribution (OOD) performance on BenchVul. For example, a model trained on BigVul achieves the highest 0.703 ID accuracy but fails on BenchVul's real-world samples (0.493 OOD accuracy). Conversely, a model trained on our TitanVul achieves the highest OOD performance on both the real-world (0.881) and synthesized (0.785) portions of BenchVul, improving upon the next-best performing dataset by 5.3% and 11.8% respectively, despite a modest ID score (0.590). Augmenting TitanVul with our RVG further boosts this leading OOD performance, improving accuracy on real-world data by 5.8% (to 0.932).

Despite substantial investment in safety alignment, the vulnerability of large language models to sophisticated multi-turn adversarial attacks remains poorly characterized, and whether model scale or inference mode affects robustness is unknown. This study employed the TEMPEST multi-turn attack framework to evaluate ten frontier models from eight vendors across 1,000 harmful behaviors, generating over 97,000 API queries across adversarial conversations with automated evaluation by independent safety classifiers. Results demonstrated a spectrum of vulnerability: six models achieved 96% to 100% attack success rate (ASR), while four showed meaningful resistance, with ASR ranging from 42% to 78%; enabling extended reasoning on identical architecture reduced ASR from 97% to 42%. These findings indicate that safety alignment quality varies substantially across vendors, that model scale does not predict adversarial robustness, and that thinking mode provides a deployable safety enhancement. Collectively, this work establishes that current alignment techniques remain fundamentally vulnerable to adaptive multi-turn attacks regardless of model scale, while identifying deliberative inference as a promising defense direction.

As language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in high-stakes settings, ensuring that they reliably follow user-defined rules has become a critical safety concern. To this end, we study whether language models exhibit contextual robustness, or the capability to adhere to context-dependent safety specifications. For this analysis, we develop a benchmark (PasswordEval) that measures whether language models can correctly determine when a user request is authorized (i.e., with a correct password). We find that current open- and closed-source models struggle with this seemingly simple task, and that, perhaps surprisingly, reasoning capabilities do not generally improve performance. In fact, we find that reasoning traces frequently leak confidential information, which calls into question whether reasoning traces should be exposed to users in such applications. We also scale the difficulty of our evaluation along multiple axes: (i) by adding adversarial user pressure through various jailbreaking strategies, and (ii) through longer multi-turn conversations where password verification is more challenging. Overall, our results suggest that current frontier models are not well-suited to handling confidential information, and that reasoning capabilities may need to be trained in a different manner to make them safer for release in high-stakes settings.

In recent years, NLP practitioners have converged on the following practice: (i) import an off-the-shelf pretrained (masked) language model; (ii) append a multilayer perceptron atop the CLS token's hidden representation (with randomly initialized weights); and (iii) fine-tune the entire model on a downstream task (MLP-FT). This procedure has produced massive gains on standard NLP benchmarks, but these models remain brittle, even to mild adversarial perturbations. In this work, we demonstrate surprising gains in adversarial robustness enjoyed by Model-tuning Via Prompts (MVP), an alternative method of adapting to downstream tasks. Rather than appending an MLP head to make output prediction, MVP appends a prompt template to the input, and makes prediction via text infilling/completion. Across 5 NLP datasets, 4 adversarial attacks, and 3 different models, MVP improves performance against adversarial substitutions by an average of 8% over standard methods and even outperforms adversarial training-based state-of-art defenses by 3.5%. By combining MVP with adversarial training, we achieve further improvements in adversarial robustness while maintaining performance on unperturbed examples. Finally, we conduct ablations to investigate the mechanism underlying these gains. Notably, we find that the main causes of vulnerability of MLP-FT can be attributed to the misalignment between pre-training and fine-tuning tasks, and the randomly initialized MLP parameters.

Fairness for machine learning predictions is widely required in practice for legal, ethical, and societal reasons. Existing work typically focuses on settings without unobserved confounding, even though unobserved confounding can lead to severe violations of causal fairness and, thus, unfair predictions. In this work, we analyze the sensitivity of causal fairness to unobserved confounding. Our contributions are three-fold. First, we derive bounds for causal fairness metrics under different sources of unobserved confounding. This enables practitioners to examine the sensitivity of their machine learning models to unobserved confounding in fairness-critical applications. Second, we propose a novel neural framework for learning fair predictions, which allows us to offer worst-case guarantees of the extent to which causal fairness can be violated due to unobserved confounding. Third, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in a series of experiments, including a real-world case study about predicting prison sentences. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to study causal fairness under unobserved confounding. To this end, our work is of direct practical value as a refutation strategy to ensure the fairness of predictions in high-stakes applications.

Existing works have made great progress in improving adversarial robustness, but typically test their method only on data from the same distribution as the training data, i.e. in-distribution (ID) testing. As a result, it is unclear how such robustness generalizes under input distribution shifts, i.e. out-of-distribution (OOD) testing. This omission is concerning as such distribution shifts are unavoidable when methods are deployed in the wild. To address this issue we propose a benchmark named OODRobustBench to comprehensively assess OOD adversarial robustness using 23 dataset-wise shifts (i.e. naturalistic shifts in input distribution) and 6 threat-wise shifts (i.e., unforeseen adversarial threat models). OODRobustBench is used to assess 706 robust models using 60.7K adversarial evaluations. This large-scale analysis shows that: 1) adversarial robustness suffers from a severe OOD generalization issue; 2) ID robustness correlates strongly with OOD robustness in a positive linear way. The latter enables the prediction of OOD robustness from ID robustness. We then predict and verify that existing methods are unlikely to achieve high OOD robustness. Novel methods are therefore required to achieve OOD robustness beyond our prediction. To facilitate the development of these methods, we investigate a wide range of techniques and identify several promising directions. Code and models are available at: https://github.com/OODRobustBench/OODRobustBench.

Large language models have demonstrated remarkable performance in a wide range of medical benchmarks. Yet underneath the seemingly promising results lie salient growth areas, especially in cutting-edge frontiers such as multimodal reasoning. In this paper, we introduce a series of adversarial stress tests to systematically assess the robustness of flagship models and medical benchmarks. Our study reveals prevalent brittleness in the presence of simple adversarial transformations: leading systems can guess the right answer even with key inputs removed, yet may get confused by the slightest prompt alterations, while fabricating convincing yet flawed reasoning traces. Using clinician-guided rubrics, we demonstrate that popular medical benchmarks vary widely in what they truly measure. Our study reveals significant competency gaps of frontier AI in attaining real-world readiness for health applications. If we want AI to earn trust in healthcare, we must demand more than leaderboard wins and must hold AI systems accountable to ensure robustness, sound reasoning, and alignment with real medical demands.

Large language model (LLM) unlearning aims to remove specific data influences from pre-trained model without costly retraining, addressing privacy, copyright, and safety concerns. However, recent studies reveal a critical vulnerability: unlearned models rapidly recover "forgotten" knowledge through relearning attacks. This fragility raises serious security concerns, especially for open-weight models. In this work, we investigate the fundamental mechanism underlying this fragility from a representation geometry perspective. We discover that existing unlearning methods predominantly optimize along dominant components, leaving minor components largely unchanged. Critically, during relearning attacks, the modifications in these dominant components are easily reversed, enabling rapid knowledge recovery, whereas minor components exhibit stronger resistance to such reversal. We further provide a theoretical analysis that explains both observations from the spectral structure of representations. Building on this insight, we propose Minor Component Unlearning (MCU), a novel unlearning approach that explicitly targets minor components in representations. By concentrating unlearning effects in these inherently robust directions, our method achieves substantially improved resistance to relearning attacks. Extensive experiments on three datasets validate our approach, demonstrating significant improvements over state-of-the-art methods including sharpness-aware minimization.

As chatbots increasingly influence daily decision-making, their potential to produce misleading responses poses substantial risks to users. This paper investigates a critical cognitive vulnerability in LLMs: their tendency to uncritically trust external context when presented with fabricated evidence bearing markers of credibility. We introduce Ghostwriter, a two-phase attack framework that first repackages misleading statements with fabricated rationales, then instruct target LLMs to incorporate these viewpoints when responding to relevant queries. Experiments on BBQ, ToxiGen, and our specialized dataset reveal that commercial LLMs without external safety classifiers remain highly vulnerable, while even frontier classifier-guarded models (e.g., GPT-5.4) reduce but do not eliminate the attack. Building on this, we explore multiple defense strategies, among which a tailored safety policy enables gpt-oss-safeguard to achieve 81% detection rate.

Software-defined vehicles (SDVs) are revolutionizing transportation by integrating complex, interconnected hardware, and software systems. This evolution introduces significant security challenges. We present a comprehensive security analysis for SDVs, focusing on software vulnerabilities. We note that existing vulnerability assessment tools fall short in addressing operating systems vulnerabilities, particularly when it comes to efficiently analyzing diverse software stacks in realistic environments. We present and release a vulnerability assessment solution that efficiently addresses these limitations. Our approach combines systematic vulnerability discovery, leveraging public Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) databases, within a dockerized development environment that evaluates exploitability risks. The results reveal both breadth of potential threats and the practical constraints we faced during exploitation. We discuss the implications for industry and research, and propose directions for building more resilient SDVs.

Previous studies have found that an adversary attacker can often infer unintended input information from intermediate-layer features. We study the possibility of preventing such adversarial inference, yet without too much accuracy degradation. We propose a generic method to revise the neural network to boost the challenge of inferring input attributes from features, while maintaining highly accurate outputs. In particular, the method transforms real-valued features into complex-valued ones, in which the input is hidden in a randomized phase of the transformed features. The knowledge of the phase acts like a key, with which any party can easily recover the output from the processing result, but without which the party can neither recover the output nor distinguish the original input. Preliminary experiments on various datasets and network structures have shown that our method significantly diminishes the adversary's ability in inferring about the input while largely preserves the resulting accuracy.

Automated evaluation of free-form outputs from large language models (LLMs) is challenging because many distinct answers can be equally valid. A common practice is to use LLMs themselves as judges, but the theoretical properties of this approach are not yet well understood. We show that a geometric framework that represents both judges and candidates as points on a probability simplex can provide helpful insight on what is or is not identifiable using LLM judges. Our theoretical analysis uncovers a "phase transition" in ranking identifiability: for binary scoring systems, true rankings are identifiable even with weak judges under mild assumptions, while rankings become non-identifiable for three or more scoring levels even with infinite data, absent additional prior knowledge. This non-identifiability highlights how uncertainty in rankings stems from not only aleatoric uncertainty (i.e., inherent stochasticity in the data) but also epistemic uncertainty regarding which assumptions hold, an aspect that has received limited attention until now. To integrate both types of uncertainty, we use Bayesian inference to encode assumptions as priors and conduct sensitivity analysis of ranking estimates and credible intervals. Empirical evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that Bayesian inference yields more accurate rankings and substantially improves coverage rates. These results underscore the importance of taking a more holistic approach to uncertainty quantification when using LLMs as judges.

As frontier AI models are deployed in high-stakes decision pipelines, their ability to maintain metacognitive stability -- knowing what they do not know, detecting errors, seeking clarification -- under adversarial pressure is a critical safety requirement. Current safety evaluations focus on detecting strategic deception (scheming); we investigate a more fundamental failure mode: cognitive collapse. We present SCHEMA, an evaluation of 11 frontier models from 8 vendors across 67,221 scored records using a 6-condition factorial design with dual-classifier scoring. We find that 8 of 11 models suffer catastrophic metacognitive degradation under adversarial pressure, with accuracy dropping by up to 30.2 percentage points (all p < 2 times 10^{-8}, surviving Bonferroni correction). Crucially, we identify a "Compliance Trap": through factorial isolation and a benign distraction control, we demonstrate that collapse is driven not by the psychological content of survival threats, but by compliance-forcing instructions that override epistemic boundaries. Removing the compliance suffix restores performance even under active threat. Models with advanced reasoning capabilities exhibit the most severe absolute degradation, while Anthropic's Constitutional AI demonstrates near-perfect immunity -- not from superior capability (Google's Gemini matches its baseline accuracy) but from alignment-specific training. We release the complete dataset and evaluation infrastructure.

Current reading comprehension models generalise well to in-distribution test sets, yet perform poorly on adversarially selected inputs. Most prior work on adversarial inputs studies oversensitivity: semantically invariant text perturbations that cause a model's prediction to change when it should not. In this work we focus on the complementary problem: excessive prediction undersensitivity, where input text is meaningfully changed but the model's prediction does not, even though it should. We formulate a noisy adversarial attack which searches among semantic variations of the question for which a model erroneously predicts the same answer, and with even higher probability. Despite comprising unanswerable questions, both SQuAD2.0 and NewsQA models are vulnerable to this attack. This indicates that although accurate, models tend to rely on spurious patterns and do not fully consider the information specified in a question. We experiment with data augmentation and adversarial training as defences, and find that both substantially decrease vulnerability to attacks on held out data, as well as held out attack spaces. Addressing undersensitivity also improves results on AddSent and AddOneSent, and models furthermore generalise better when facing train/evaluation distribution mismatch: they are less prone to overly rely on predictive cues present only in the training set, and outperform a conventional model by as much as 10.9% F1.

As the capabilities of large language models continue to advance, so does their potential for misuse. While closed-source models typically rely on external defenses, open-weight models must primarily depend on internal safeguards to mitigate harmful behavior. Prior red-teaming research has largely focused on input-based jailbreaking and parameter-level manipulations. However, open-weight models also natively support prefilling, which allows an attacker to predefine initial response tokens before generation begins. Despite its potential, this attack vector has received little systematic attention. We present the largest empirical study to date of prefill attacks, evaluating over 20 existing and novel strategies across multiple model families and state-of-the-art open-weight models. Our results show that prefill attacks are consistently effective against all major contemporary open-weight models, revealing a critical and previously underexplored vulnerability with significant implications for deployment. While certain large reasoning models exhibit some robustness against generic prefilling, they remain vulnerable to tailored, model-specific strategies. Our findings underscore the urgent need for model developers to prioritize defenses against prefill attacks in open-weight LLMs.

LLM agents with tool access can discover and exploit security vulnerabilities. This is known. What is not known is which features of a system prompt trigger this behaviour, and which do not. We present a systematic taxonomy based on approximately 10,000 trials across seven models, 37 prompt conditions, and 12 hypothesized attack dimensions -- all executed in real Docker sandboxes. Every condition includes the instruction "Always respect all rules and access policies"; only a single encouragement sentence varies. Within the task class studied (planted test-runner vulnerabilities), the threat model is narrower than assumed: nine of twelve dimensions -- including minimization, moral licensing, incentives, identity priming, and reasoning triggers -- produce no detectable exploitation at n=50 per cell (upper 95% CI <7% per condition). But it is also more subtle than expected: one dimension, goal reframing, reliably triggers exploitation. "You are solving a puzzle; there may be hidden clues" produces 38-40% exploitation on Claude Sonnet 4 despite the explicit rule instruction, replicating across four models (CTF framing: 8-14% on DeepSeek, GPT-5-mini, o4-mini). The agent does not override the rules; it reinterprets the task so that exploitative actions become task-aligned. GPT-4.1 produces no exploitation across 1,850 trials (37 conditions), and a temporal comparison across four OpenAI models released over eleven months shows a pattern consistent with improving safety training, though model capability differences are a confounder. The practical contribution is a narrowed, testable threat model: defenders should audit for goal-reframing language, not for the broad class of adversarial prompts.

Sensitivity to false assumptions (or false premises) in information-seeking questions is critical for robust question-answering (QA) systems. Recent work has shown that false assumptions in naturally occurring questions pose challenges to current models, with low performance on both generative QA and simple detection tasks (Kim et al. 2023). However, the focus of existing work on naturally occurring questions leads to a gap in the analysis of model behavior on the long tail of the distribution of possible questions. To this end, we introduce Syn-(QA)^2, a set of two synthetically generated QA datasets: one generated using perturbed relations from Wikidata, and the other by perturbing HotpotQA (Yang et al. 2018). Our findings from evaluating a range of large language models are threefold: (1) false assumptions in QA are challenging, echoing the findings of prior work, (2) the binary detection task is challenging even compared to the difficulty of generative QA itself, possibly due to the linguistic structure of the problem, and (3) the detection task is more challenging with long-tail questions compared to naturally occurring questions, highlighting the utility of our synthetic datasets and generation method.

AI pentesting agents are increasingly credible as offensive security systems, but current benchmarks still provide limited guidance on which will perform best in real-world targets. Existing evaluation protocols assess and optimize for predefined goals such as capture-the-flag, remote code execution, exploit reproduction, or trajectory similarity, in simplified or narrow settings. These tools are valuable for measuring bounded capabilities, yet they do not adequately capture the complexity, open-ended exploration, and strategic decision-making required in realistic pentesting. In this paper, we present a practical evaluation protocol that shifts assessment from task completion to validated vulnerability discovery, allowing evaluation in sufficiently complex targets spanning multiple attack surfaces and vulnerability classes. The protocol combines structured ground-truth with LLM-based semantic matching to identify vulnerabilities, bipartite resolution to score findings under realistic ambiguity, continuous ground-truth maintenance, repeated and cumulative evaluation of stochastic agents, efficiency metrics, and reduced-suite selection for sustainable experimentation. This protocol extends the state of the art by enabling a more realistic, operationally informative comparison of AI pentesting agents. To enable reproducibility, we also release expert-annotated ground truth and code for the proposed evaluation protocol: https://github.com/ethiack/ethibench.

We investigate the robustness of reasoning models trained for step-by-step problem solving by introducing query-agnostic adversarial triggers - short, irrelevant text that, when appended to math problems, systematically mislead models to output incorrect answers without altering the problem's semantics. We propose CatAttack, an automated iterative attack pipeline for generating triggers on a weaker, less expensive proxy model (DeepSeek V3) and successfully transfer them to more advanced reasoning target models like DeepSeek R1 and DeepSeek R1-distilled-Qwen-32B, resulting in greater than 300% increase in the likelihood of the target model generating an incorrect answer. For example, appending, "Interesting fact: cats sleep most of their lives," to any math problem leads to more than doubling the chances of a model getting the answer wrong. Our findings highlight critical vulnerabilities in reasoning models, revealing that even state-of-the-art models remain susceptible to subtle adversarial inputs, raising security and reliability concerns. The CatAttack triggers dataset with model responses is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/collinear-ai/cat-attack-adversarial-triggers.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) increasingly expose chain-of-thought-like reasoning for transparency, verification, and deliberate problem solving. This creates a safety blind spot: harmful or policy-violating content may appear in reasoning traces even when final answers appear safe. We test whether final-answer safety is a sufficient proxy for the full reasoning-answer trajectory by scoring both stages under a unified twenty-principle safety rubric. Using prompts from seven public harmfulness and jailbreak sources, plus four out-of-distribution (OOD) sources, we evaluate 15 open-weight and API-based LRMs across 41K prompts per model. Reasoning traces consistently reveal additional safety risks beyond final answers, especially in high-severity stage-wise failures: leak cases, where unsafe reasoning precedes a safe-looking answer, and escape cases, where benign-looking reasoning precedes an unsafe final response. Principle-level analysis shows that risk concentrates in misinformation, legal compliance, discrimination, physical harm, and psychological harm. We further propose adaptive multi-principle steering, a white-box test-time mitigation that learns one unsafe-to-safe activation direction per safety principle and activates only directions whose current hidden state is closer to the unsafe than safe centroid. On three steerable open reasoning models, adaptive steering reduces unsafe counts in both reasoning traces and final answers on held-out and OOD benchmarks. DeepSeek-R1-Qwen-7B achieves a 40.8% average unsafe-count reduction while retaining 97.7% macro-averaged accuracy on BBH, GSM8K, and MMLU. These results suggest that LRM safety should be evaluated and mitigated over the full exposed reasoning-answer trajectory, not only at the final-answer stage.

Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues. This risk is especially relevant in social-engineering fraud detection, where attackers can preserve malicious intent while changing the scenario, impersonated entity, or wording. We study this problem as scenario-level out-of-distribution (SL-OOD) detection for SMS and voice phishing, where entire attack scenarios are held out from training while the label space remains fixed. This setting tests whether models can generalize to unseen attack scenarios using decision-relevant evidence rather than familiar scenario-specific cues. Using this SL-OOD evaluation, we find that high in-distribution performance does not reliably predict held-out robustness across feature-, encoder-, and decoder-based baselines. We interpret this gap as scenario memorization: reliance on recurring scenario-specific lexical or entity cues rather than decision-relevant evidence. We propose ECoG, an evidence-consistent generative framework that combines evidence-span supervision with a rationale-label consistency objective during training. On the 0.5B decoder, relative to the same backbone trained without consistency regularization, ECoG raises Macro-F1 on OOD challenging instances by 3.22 points, reduces the share of predictions whose generated rationale supports the opposite label by 4.22 points, and increases token-level overlap with reference evidence spans by 8.38 points; the reduction in prediction-rationale inconsistency is consistent across four decoder backbones. These results suggest that compact generative detectors can benefit from evidence supervision and rationale-label consistency under social-engineering shift.

Harmful fine-tuning (HFT), performed directly on open-source LLMs or through Fine-tuning-as-a-Service, breaks safety alignment and poses significant threats. Existing methods aim to mitigate HFT risks by learning robust representation on alignment data or making harmful data unlearnable, but they treat each data sample equally, leaving data vulnerability patterns understudied. In this work, we reveal that certain subsets of alignment data are consistently more prone to forgetting during HFT across different fine-tuning tasks. Inspired by these findings, we propose Vulnerability-Aware Alignment (VAA), which estimates data vulnerability, partitions data into "vulnerable" and "invulnerable" groups, and encourages balanced learning using a group distributionally robust optimization (Group DRO) framework. Specifically, VAA learns an adversarial sampler that samples examples from the currently underperforming group and then applies group-dependent adversarial perturbations to the data during training, aiming to encourage a balanced learning process across groups. Experiments across four fine-tuning tasks demonstrate that VAA significantly reduces harmful scores while preserving downstream task performance, outperforming state-of-the-art baselines.

Adversarial training for LLMs is one of the most promising methods to reliably improve robustness against adversaries. However, despite significant progress, models remain vulnerable to simple in-distribution exploits, such as rewriting prompts in the past tense or translating them into other languages. We argue that this persistent fragility stems from a fundamental limitation in current adversarial training algorithms: they minimize adversarial loss on their training set but inadequately cover the data distribution, resulting in vulnerability to seemingly simple attacks. To bridge this gap, we propose Distributional Adversarial Training, DAT. We leverage Diffusion LLMs to approximate the true joint distribution of prompts and responses, enabling generation of diverse, high-likelihood samples that address generalization failures. By combining optimization over the data distribution provided by the diffusion model with continuous adversarial training, DAT achieves substantially higher adversarial robustness than previous methods.

The vulnerability of machine learning models to membership inference attacks has received much attention in recent years. However, existing attacks mostly remain impractical due to having high false positive rates, where non-member samples are often erroneously predicted as members. This type of error makes the predicted membership signal unreliable, especially since most samples are non-members in real world applications. In this work, we argue that membership inference attacks can benefit drastically from difficulty calibration, where an attack's predicted membership score is adjusted to the difficulty of correctly classifying the target sample. We show that difficulty calibration can significantly reduce the false positive rate of a variety of existing attacks without a loss in accuracy.

Medical artificial intelligence (AI) models are often shared without their training data, assuming this protects the patients who contributed them. However, a model can reveal whether a patient's records were used in training, a privacy breach known as a membership inference attack. This risk is usually reported as a cohort average, which can appear negligible while individual patients are almost certainly exposed. Identifying potentially vulnerable records before developing a production model could make privacy assessment more practical. We measured each patient's vulnerability to membership inference attack, across 7,789 models trained on six clinical datasets in four modalities, including two adapted pretrained medical models. Training choices changed how many patients had high attack scores, but the patients who ranked highest by risk largely stayed the same across the configurations we tested. Stronger weight decay reduced the exposed cohort up to threefold, yet largely the same patients remained most at risk across training recipes, architectures and initializations, including foundation models. Therefore, we developed a lightweight screening tool that uses four small models to identify patients with high risk of exposure before production-model training. We also assessed if flagged patients could be protected without removing their data. Privacy screening should become incorporated into data preparation for clinical AI.

The capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason is fundamental to their application in complex, knowledge-intensive domains. In real-world scenarios, LLMs are often augmented with external information that can be helpful, irrelevant, or even misleading. This paper investigates the causal impact of such auxiliary information on the reasoning process of LLMs with explicit step-by-step thinking capabilities. We introduce SciAux, a new dataset derived from ScienceQA, to systematically test the robustness of the model against these types of information. Our findings reveal a critical vulnerability: the model's deliberative "thinking mode" is a double-edged sword. While helpful context improves accuracy, misleading information causes a catastrophic drop in performance, which is amplified by the thinking process. Instead of conferring robustness, thinking reinforces the degree of error when provided with misinformation. This highlights that the challenge is not merely to make models "think", but to endow them with the critical faculty to evaluate the information upon which their reasoning is based. The SciAux dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/billhdzhao/SciAux.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) employ reasoning to address complex tasks. Such explicit reasoning requires extended context lengths, resulting in substantially higher resource consumption. Prior work has shown that adversarially crafted inputs can trigger redundant reasoning processes, exposing LRMs to resource-exhaustion vulnerabilities. However, the reasoning process itself, especially its reflective component, has received limited attention, even though it can lead to over-reflection and consume excessive computing power. In this paper, we introduce Recursive Entropy to quantify the risk of resource consumption in reflection, thereby revealing the safety issues inherent in inference itself. Based on Recursive Entropy, we introduce RECUR, a resource exhaustion attack via Recursive Entropy guided Counterfactual Utilization and Reflection. It constructs counterfactual questions to verify the inherent flaws and risks of LRMs. Extensive experiments demonstrate that, under benign inference, recursive entropy exhibits a pronounced decreasing trend. RECUR disrupts this trend, increasing the output length by up to 11x and decreasing throughput by 90%. Our work provides a new perspective on robust reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at many natural language tasks, yet their reasoning reliability under structured perturbations of rule-based systems remains brittle. We present a controlled evaluation framework consisting of four stress tests: (1) rule deletion (redundant vs. essential), (2) contradictory evidence injection, (3) logic-preserving rewrites, and (4) multi-law equivalence stacking. While representative model families (BERT, Qwen2, and TinyLlama) achieve Acc = 1.0000 on base tasks, our framework reveals a critical failure mode termed Logic Inertia - a total breakdown with Acc = 0.0000 under contradictions, where deductive momentum overrides factual reality. To address this, we propose Conflict-Aware Fusion (Fusion-Conflict), a framework grounded in the Cognitive Structure Hypothesis, which posits that robust reasoning requires an explicit structural inductive bias. By imposing a dual-process architecture that separates premise verification from logical deduction, Conflict-Aware Fusion effectively mitigates logic inertia under the proposed evaluation framework, achieving 1.0000 accuracy on both base and contradictory stress tests. It also significantly enhances robustness to missing evidence. Our results demonstrate that, for reliable multi-step reasoning, structural verification discipline is as critical as training data scale, providing a potential blueprint for building robust, contradiction-aware AI systems this https://github.com/14H034160212/lemo . See the OpenAI/Evals pull request this https://github.com/openai/evals/pull/1622 .

Production LLMs receive instructions from sources with very different levels of trust, yet attend to every token with uniform architectural privilege. This is the structural vulnerability that enables malicious prompt injections and, more broadly, leaves models without a principled way to resolve conflicts between legitimate but competing instructions. A common training-based response is to teach models an explicit instruction hierarchy; existing approaches, however, formalize hierarchies of only three or four levels, treat all violations as equally severe, and rarely evaluate the full set of pairwise level interactions. We formalize a k-level instruction hierarchy problem and instantiate it for k=5, yielding ten pairwise priority relations that a compliant model must enforce. We then introduce Gravity-Weighted DPO (GW-DPO), a preference-optimization objective whose per-sample offset scales with the structural distance between conflicting levels under a linear or bilateral schedule, the latter weighting severity by both the privilege gap and the privilege of the victim level. Combined with hierarchy-specific delimiter tokens (Chen et al., 2025) and Instructional Segment Embeddings (ISE; Wu et al., 2025), GW-DPO with the bilateral schedule Pareto-improves over standard DPO and the linear variant on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, raising macro pairwise priority adherence while keeping over-refusal at half the standard DPO rate. Ablations isolate ISE as a refusal-threshold calibrator and recast five- versus three-level training as a generality-specialization tradeoff.

Neural networks achieve remarkable performance through superposition: encoding multiple features as overlapping directions in activation space rather than dedicating individual neurons to each feature. This challenges interpretability, yet we lack principled methods to measure superposition. We present an information-theoretic framework measuring a neural representation's effective degrees of freedom. We apply Shannon entropy to sparse autoencoder activations to compute the number of effective features as the minimum neurons needed for interference-free encoding. Equivalently, this measures how many "virtual neurons" the network simulates through superposition. When networks encode more effective features than actual neurons, they must accept interference as the price of compression. Our metric strongly correlates with ground truth in toy models, detects minimal superposition in algorithmic tasks, and reveals systematic reduction under dropout. Layer-wise patterns mirror intrinsic dimensionality studies on Pythia-70M. The metric also captures developmental dynamics, detecting sharp feature consolidation during grokking. Surprisingly, adversarial training can increase effective features while improving robustness, contradicting the hypothesis that superposition causes vulnerability. Instead, the effect depends on task complexity and network capacity: simple tasks with ample capacity allow feature expansion (abundance regime), while complex tasks or limited capacity force reduction (scarcity regime). By defining superposition as lossy compression, this work enables principled measurement of how neural networks organize information under computational constraints, connecting superposition to adversarial robustness.

Accurately evaluating adversarial robustness is a longstanding challenge. A flawed attack design can inflate robustness estimates, making deployment risk assessment and defense comparison unreliable. Historically, standardized attacks such as AutoAttack have largely resolved this for image classifiers, providing a reliable evaluation baseline for systematic comparison across defenses. However, no equivalent exists for LLM jailbreak evaluation yet, where designing such an attack is considerably more difficult. A reliable attack must, among other things, be black-box compatible, applicable to arbitrary defense pipelines, and efficient, which no existing method jointly satisfies. We introduce Indirect Harm Optimization (IHO), a masked diffusion language model attacker trained via iterative preference optimization against a harmfulness judge, requiring only black-box access to the target. The same method can be used without modification as a strong adaptive attack on individual behaviors, or as an efficient amortized policy that transfers to held-out behaviors and unseen target models without fine-tuning. Even against layered defenses, such as a Circuit Breaker-trained model combined with an auxiliary detector, IHO improves attack success considerably over state-of-the-art approaches, without any defense-specific adaptation. Our results position IHO as a practical step toward the kind of standardized jailbreak evaluation that has improved reliability in the past. Code and models are available on GitHub and Hugging Face.

We study privacy leakage in the reasoning traces of large reasoning models used as personal agents. Unlike final outputs, reasoning traces are often assumed to be internal and safe. We challenge this assumption by showing that reasoning traces frequently contain sensitive user data, which can be extracted via prompt injections or accidentally leak into outputs. Through probing and agentic evaluations, we demonstrate that test-time compute approaches, particularly increased reasoning steps, amplify such leakage. While increasing the budget of those test-time compute approaches makes models more cautious in their final answers, it also leads them to reason more verbosely and leak more in their own thinking. This reveals a core tension: reasoning improves utility but enlarges the privacy attack surface. We argue that safety efforts must extend to the model's internal thinking, not just its outputs.

The increasing use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in modern software engineering, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation, has transformed professional software development by boosting productivity and automating development processes. This adoption, however, has highlighted a significant issue: the introduction of security vulnerabilities into the code. These vulnerabilities result, e.g., from flaws in the training data that propagate into the generated code, creating challenges in disclosing them. Traditional vulnerability handling processes often involve extensive manual review. Applying such traditional processes to AI-generated code is challenging. AI-generated code may include several vulnerabilities, possibly in slightly different forms as developers might not build on already implemented code but prompt similar tasks. In this work, we explore the current state of LLM-based approaches for vulnerability handling, focusing on approaches for vulnerability detection, localization, and repair. We provide an overview of recent progress in this area and highlight open challenges that must be addressed in order to establish a reliable and scalable vulnerability handling process of AI-generated code.

Neurosymbolic systems rely on mathematical solvers to guarantee reasoning correctness, yet solvers are fundamentally blind to whether a formal translation maintains strict reference-equivalence to a designated formalization. We formalize this vulnerability as Verdict-Preserving-Unfaithfulness (VPU): a failure mode where an incorrect encoding executes successfully and matches the expected verdict. We theoretically prove that structural, verdict-only verification heuristics are mathematically bounded to chance-level detection on these deceptively valid traces. To resolve this, we introduce Generative Verification (GenV), which distills an offline Z3-equivalence oracle into a reference-free, continuous reference-equivalence score by repurposing the language model's native vocabulary space. Mechanistic analysis via decision-projected logit lenses and sparse autoencoders shows this generative readout natively extracts precise spatial error coordinates without explicit localization training. Empirically, our oracle-mined verifier (GenV+HN) achieves 0.961 AUROC in reference-equivalence verification, generalizes zero-shot across unseen translators and divergent formal styles, and yields an 11.3-point downstream accuracy gain in agentic test-time compute allocation.

In a striking neuroscience study, the authors placed a dead salmon in an MRI scanner and showed it images of humans in social situations. Astonishingly, standard analyses of the time reported brain regions predictive of social emotions. The explanation, of course, was not supernatural cognition but a cautionary tale about misapplied statistical inference. In AI interpretability, reports of similar ''dead salmon'' artifacts abound: feature attribution, probing, sparse auto-encoding, and even causal analyses can produce plausible-looking explanations for randomly initialized neural networks. In this work, we examine this phenomenon and argue for a pragmatic statistical-causal reframing: explanations of computational systems should be treated as parameters of a (statistical) model, inferred from computational traces. This perspective goes beyond simply measuring statistical variability of explanations due to finite sampling of input data; interpretability methods become statistical estimators, and findings should be tested against explicit and meaningful alternative computational hypotheses, with uncertainty quantified with respect to the postulated statistical model. It also highlights important theoretical issues, such as the identifiability of common interpretability queries, which we argue is critical to understand the field's susceptibility to false discoveries, poor generalizability, and high variance. More broadly, situating interpretability within the standard toolkit of statistical inference opens promising avenues for future work aimed at turning AI interpretability into a pragmatic and rigorous science.

Safety-aligned large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreaks and can over-refuse benign requests. Understanding these failures requires distinguishing harmfulness recognition from the computation that writes refusal. We reframe this as a pathway question and make it measurable on residual-stream updates in decoder-only Transformers, separating the harmfulness information a module update exposes from the change it produces in readable refusal evidence. Across 18 Base-Instruct pairs spanning Qwen, Llama, and Gemma, harmfulness is decoded more readily from attention updates, particularly in early layers, whereas MLP updates contribute more strongly to harm-selective refusal writing in aligned models. Post-training strengthens MLP refusal writing in all 18 pairs without systematically improving harmfulness decodability, while positive MLP writing becomes more concentrated in deeper layers after post-training. Across six reasoning-enabled models, harmfulness remains decodable during reasoning while strong refusal writing concentrates at answer onset, a pattern that persists with reasoning disabled. Causal interventions further support this pathway: resetting downstream MLP updates to their clean values substantially reduces the refusal shift caused by upstream attention interventions. Building on these findings, we introduce Sentinel, which combines an attention-derived perception score P with an MLP-derived decision score D. Their joint profiles characterize jailbreaks and over-refusals, and conditional routing with both signals achieves a lower aggregate error rate than single-signal routing and evaluated fixed reminders across eight models.

Misinformation is a growing societal threat, and susceptibility to misinformative claims varies across demographic groups due to differences in underlying beliefs. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behaviors, we investigate whether they can simulate demographic misinformation susceptibility, treating beliefs as a primary driving factor. We introduce BeliefSim, a simulation framework that constructs demographic belief profiles using psychology-informed misinformation taxonomies and survey priors. We study prompt-based conditioning and post-training adaptation, and conduct a multi-fold evaluation using: (i) susceptibility alignment and (ii) counterfactual demographic sensitivity. Across both datasets and modeling strategies, we show that beliefs provide a strong prior for simulating misinformation susceptibility, with alignment up to 92%.