Can adversarial attacks by large language models be attributed?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08003v3
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 20:23:15 GMT
• Title: Can adversarial attacks by large language models be attributed?
• Authors: Manuel Cebrian, Andres Abeliuk, Jan Arne Telle,
• Abstract summary: We show that certain classes of Large Language Models (LLMs) are not identifiable from their outputs alone.<n>We quantify the explosion in the number of plausible model origins for a given output in recent years.
• Score: 1.2289361708127877
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Attributing outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) in adversarial settings-such as cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns-presents significant challenges that are likely to grow in importance. We approach this attribution problem from both a theoretical and an empirical perspective, drawing on formal language theory (identification in the limit) and data-driven analysis of the expanding LLM ecosystem. By modeling an LLM's set of possible outputs as a formal language, we analyze whether finite samples of text can uniquely pinpoint the originating model. Our results show that, under mild assumptions of overlapping capabilities among models, certain classes of LLMs are fundamentally non-identifiable from their outputs alone. We delineate four regimes of theoretical identifiability: (1) an infinite class of deterministic (discrete) LLM languages is not identifiable (Gold's classical result from 1967); (2) an infinite class of probabilistic LLMs is also not identifiable (by extension of the deterministic case); (3) a finite class of deterministic LLMs is identifiable (consistent with Angluin's tell-tale criterion); and (4) even a finite class of probabilistic LLMs can be non-identifiable (we provide a new counterexample establishing this negative result). Complementing these theoretical insights, we quantify the explosion in the number of plausible model origins (hypothesis space) for a given output in recent years. Even under conservative assumptions-each open-source model fine-tuned on at most one new dataset-the count of distinct candidate models doubles approximately every 0.5 years, and allowing multi-dataset fine-tuning combinations yields doubling times as short as 0.28 years. This combinatorial growth, alongside the extraordinary computational cost of brute-force likelihood attribution across all models and potential users, renders exhaustive attribution infeasible in practice.

Related papers

• Beyond Chains of Thought: Benchmarking Latent-Space Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) can perform reasoning computations both internally within their latent space and externally. This study introduces a benchmark designed to quantify model-internal reasoning in different domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T18:15:27Z)
• LINGOLY-TOO: Disentangling Memorisation from Reasoning with Linguistic Templatisation and Orthographic Obfuscation [1.2576388595811496]
  We introduce a framework for producing linguistic reasoning problems that reduces the effect of memorisation in model performance estimates. We apply this framework to develop LINGOLY-TOO, a challenging benchmark for linguistic reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T19:57:47Z)
• Deterministic or probabilistic? The psychology of LLMs as random number generators [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed text generation through inherently probabilistic context-aware mechanisms.<n>Our results reveal that, despite their transformers-based architecture, these models often exhibit deterministic responses when prompted for random numerical outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T10:45:27Z)
• Exploring Robustness of LLMs to Sociodemographically-Conditioned Paraphrasing [7.312170216336085]
  We take a broader approach to explore a wider range of variations across sociodemographic dimensions. We extend the SocialIQA dataset to create diverse paraphrased sets conditioned on sociodemographic styles. We find that demographic-specific paraphrasing significantly impacts the performance of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T17:50:06Z)
• Large Language Models can be Strong Self-Detoxifiers [82.6594169242814]
  Self-disciplined Autoregressive Sampling (SASA) is a lightweight controlled decoding algorithm for toxicity reduction of large language models (LLMs) SASA tracks the margin of the current output to steer the generation away from the toxic subspace, by adjusting the autoregressive sampling strategy. evaluated on LLMs of different scale and nature, namely Llama-3.1-Instruct (8B), Llama-2 (7B), and GPT2-L models with the RealToxicityPrompts, BOLD, and AttaQ benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:45:15Z)
• Boosting the Capabilities of Compact Models in Low-Data Contexts with Large Language Models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation [2.9921619703037274]
  We propose a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) framework backed by a large language model (LLM) to correct the output of a smaller model for the linguistic task of morphological glossing. We leverage linguistic information to make up for the lack of data and trainable parameters, while allowing for inputs from written descriptive grammars interpreted and distilled through an LLM. We show that a compact, RAG-supported model is highly effective in data-scarce settings, achieving a new state-of-the-art for this task and our target languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T04:20:14Z)
• Let Me Speak Freely? A Study on the Impact of Format Restrictions on Performance of Large Language Models [59.970391602080205]
  This study investigates whether such constraints on generation space impact LLMs abilities, including reasoning and domain knowledge comprehension. We evaluate LLMs performance when restricted to adhere to structured formats versus generating free-form responses across various common tasks. We find that stricter format constraints generally lead to greater performance degradation in reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T13:08:24Z)
• Misinforming LLMs: vulnerabilities, challenges and opportunities [4.54019093815234]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant advances in natural language processing, but their underlying mechanisms are often misunderstood. This paper argues that current LLM architectures are inherently untrustworthy due to their reliance on correlations of sequential patterns of word embedding vectors. Research into combining generative transformer-based models with fact bases and logic programming languages may lead to the development of trustworthy LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T10:35:49Z)
• What Languages are Easy to Language-Model? A Perspective from Learning Probabilistic Regular Languages [78.1866280652834]
  Large language models (LM) are distributions over strings.<n>We investigate the learnability of regular LMs (RLMs) by RNN and Transformer LMs.<n>We find that the complexity of the RLM rank is strong and significant predictors of learnability for both RNNs and Transformers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T17:34:24Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• Reasoning over Uncertain Text by Generative Large Language Models [18.983753573277596]
  This paper considers the challenges Large Language Models (LLMs) face when reasoning over text that includes information involving uncertainty explicitly quantified via probability values.<n>We introduce the Bayesian Linguistic Inference dataset (BLInD), a new dataset designed to test the probabilistic reasoning capabilities of LLMs.<n>We present several prompting strategies that map the problem to different formal representations, including Python code, probabilistic algorithms, and probabilistic logical programming.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T23:05:44Z)
• Rethinking Interpretability in the Era of Large Language Models [76.1947554386879]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide array of tasks. The capability to explain in natural language allows LLMs to expand the scale and complexity of patterns that can be given to a human. These new capabilities raise new challenges, such as hallucinated explanations and immense computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T17:38:54Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Let Models Speak Ciphers: Multiagent Debate through Embeddings [84.20336971784495]
  We introduce CIPHER (Communicative Inter-Model Protocol Through Embedding Representation) to address this issue. By deviating from natural language, CIPHER offers an advantage of encoding a broader spectrum of information without any modification to the model weights. This showcases the superiority and robustness of embeddings as an alternative "language" for communication among LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T03:06:38Z)
• Causal Reasoning and Large Language Models: Opening a New Frontier for Causality [29.433401785920065]
  Large language models (LLMs) can generate causal arguments with high probability. LLMs may be used by human domain experts to save effort in setting up a causal analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-28T19:00:43Z)
• Augmented Language Models: a Survey [55.965967655575454]
  This survey reviews works in which language models (LMs) are augmented with reasoning skills and the ability to use tools. We refer to them as Augmented Language Models (ALMs) The missing token objective allows ALMs to learn to reason, use tools, and even act, while still performing standard natural language tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-15T18:25:52Z)
• ThinkSum: Probabilistic reasoning over sets using large language models [18.123895485602244]
  We propose a two-stage probabilistic inference paradigm, ThinkSum, which reasons over sets of objects or facts in a structured manner. We demonstrate the possibilities and advantages of ThinkSum on the BIG-bench suite of LLM evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T00:34:01Z)
• Evaluating Distributional Distortion in Neural Language Modeling [81.83408583979745]
  A heavy-tail of rare events accounts for a significant amount of the total probability mass of distributions in language. Standard language modeling metrics such as perplexity quantify the performance of language models (LM) in aggregate. We develop a controlled evaluation scheme which uses generative models trained on natural data as artificial languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-24T01:09:46Z)
• Limits of Detecting Text Generated by Large-Scale Language Models [65.46403462928319]
  Some consider large-scale language models that can generate long and coherent pieces of text as dangerous, since they may be used in misinformation campaigns. Here we formulate large-scale language model output detection as a hypothesis testing problem to classify text as genuine or generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-09T19:53:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.