arXiv subjects

Chhavi Yadav

Publications and source records attributed to Chhavi Yadav.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Hidden in Plain Sight: Benchmarking Agent Safety Against Decomposition Attacks with DECOMPBENCH

LLM-based Agents are becoming increasingly capable and widely deployed, creating growing incentives for adversarial misuse in the real-world. A key emerging threat is Decomposition Attacks \cite{glukhov2024breach, jones2024adversaries} in which a harmful task is broken into simpler, benign subtasks that evade safety mechanisms when executed separately but cumulatively fulfill the malicious intent. Although recent benchmarks assess agent safety in multi-turn and multi-tool-use settings, they do not explicitly capture this form of decompositional misuse and may not represent realistic adversarial execution flows. To this end, we introduce DeCompBench, a benchmark designed specifically to evaluate agentic safety under decomposition attacks. DeCompBench is created with a decomposition-by-design principle using a graphical framework and enables harmful task decomposition into individually benign and executable subtasks with realistic workflows. Our experiments using a custom decomposer show that state-of-the-art agents exhibit high refusal rates on monolithic harmful tasks, but significantly lower refusal rates on their decomposed variants, while often inadvertently fulfilling the adversarial objectives. These findings underscore the need for safety evaluations against decomposition attacks and corresponding defenses. Our dataset is publicly available and can be found at https://huggingface.co/datasets/decompositionbench/DeCompBench.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Position: Preventing AI-Generated CSAM Necessitates New Approaches to AI Safety

Modern artificial intelligence (AI) systems present profound new risks to child safety. AI is increasingly being misused to create AI-generated child sexual abuse material, facilitate child sexual exploitation, and reduce barriers to harm. In this paper, we argue that protecting children from AI-facilitated sexual abuse requires new approaches to AI safety. Existing safety techniques assume data accessibility, transparency, and evaluation practices that are incompatible with the ethical and legal constraints surrounding child sexual abuse material. We examine how these constraints create new technical challenges, such as limitations on dataset auditing, red teaming, and fine-tuning prevention. In turn, we outline *15 open problems* in online child sexual exploitation and abuse across the AI development lifecycle, from dataset curation and model design to deployment and long-term maintenance. We propose targeted recommendations for researchers, developers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between theoretical AI safety and the realities of child protection. Our work aims to reframe preventing AI-facilitated child sexual abuse as a central, safety-critical dimension for AI research, motivating work that translates responsible AI principles into concrete safeguards against the exploitation of children.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Alignment Defends LLMs from Property Inference Attacks

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly fine-tuned on domain-specific datasets that may contain sensitive, dataset-level properties. Recent work has shown that such dataset-level information can be effectively extracted through property inference attacks, posing a confidentiality risk. Existing defenses against these attacks primarily operate by modifying the training data distribution and hence require access to the original data and retraining the model, limiting their applicability to settings where data is unavailable or models are already deployed. In this work, we propose alignment-based defenses for mitigating property inference attacks in LLMs. Our approach reshapes the model's output distribution towards a target property ratio via post-training alignment, without modifying the training data. In particular, we adapt two widely used RLHF frameworks--Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)--as our defenses by constructing preference pairs and defining a specific reward function respectively. Through comprehensive experiments, we show that our alignment based defenses effectively mitigate property inference attacks while maintaining a strong utility confidentiality tradeoff.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Open-Weight LLM Fine-Tuning Defenses are Susceptible to Simple Attacks

Recent defenses for safeguarding open-weight large language models (LLMs) are intended to prevent adversarial usage. Underlying these defenses is an assumption that new harmful behavior is learned through fine-tuning rather than elicited by jailbreaking the model. Yet, pretrained LLMs already encode substantial harmful knowledge across many domains, which raises an important question: can an adversary jailbreak safeguarded models, to achieve harmful usage without fine-tuning at all? In this paper, we show that open-weight safeguards are susceptible to simpler strategies that, despite being well known, have not been systematically evaluated against these safeguards. Specifically, we evaluate two low-cost attacks--abliteration and prefilling--that do not rely on gradient-based optimization. Across three harmfulness evaluation benchmarks (BeaverTails, HarmBench, and AdvBench), these attacks increase attack success rates against safeguarded open-weight models from below 10\% to a range of 16%-96%. To mitigate this vulnerability, we introduce abliteration-resistant tuning (ART), which incorporates an abliteration-based objective into training. ART can be layered onto existing defenses and reduces the success rates of abliteration, prefilling, and their combination by 10%-20%. These findings indicate that the attack surface for open-weight models is broader than previously characterized, and that evaluations of safeguarding defenses should incorporate a more diverse set of attack strategies beyond adversarial fine-tuning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Curriculum Learning for Safety Alignment

Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) is widely used for safety alignment in large language models. However, prior work shows it is brittle and exhibits poor out-of-distribution (OOD) generalisation. In this paper, we investigate whether Curriculum Learning can improve the robustness of DPO-based safety alignment. We propose Staged-Competence, a curriculum-based framework that organises preference data by difficulty, employs competence-based sampling, and progressively updates the reference model during training. Averaged across three model families, Staged-Competence reduces OOD harmful response rates by 16% and jailbreak attack success rates by 20%, while preserving general capabilities with near-zero over-refusal. We further show that Staged-Competence (1) matches baseline safety with only 75% of the training data and (2) yields better separation between safe and unsafe responses. Staged-Competence is agnostic to the policy optimisation loss and can extend to other DPO variants and alignment domains. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Sandeep5500/curriculum-learning-for-safety.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Can We Infer Confidential Properties of Training Data from LLMs?

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly fine-tuned on domain-specific datasets to support applications in fields such as healthcare, finance, and law. These fine-tuning datasets often have sensitive and confidential dataset-level properties -- such as patient demographics or disease prevalence -- that are not intended to be revealed. While prior work has studied property inference attacks on discriminative models (e.g., image classification models) and generative models (e.g., GANs for image data), it remains unclear if such attacks transfer to LLMs. In this work, we introduce PropInfer, a benchmark task for evaluating property inference in LLMs under two fine-tuning paradigms: question-answering and chat-completion. Built on the ChatDoctor dataset, our benchmark includes a range of property types and task configurations. We further propose two tailored attacks: a prompt-based generation attack and a shadow-model attack leveraging word frequency signals. Empirical evaluations across multiple pretrained LLMs show the success of our attacks, revealing a previously unrecognized vulnerability in LLMs.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Automated Concept Discovery for LLM-as-a-Judge Preference Analysis

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scalable evaluators of model outputs, but their preference judgments exhibit systematic biases and can diverge from human evaluations. Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge has largely focused on a small, predefined set of hypothesized biases, leaving open the problem of automatically discovering unknown drivers of LLM preferences. We address this gap by studying several embedding-level concept extraction methods for analyzing LLM judge behavior. We compare these methods in terms of interpretability and predictiveness, finding that sparse autoencoder-based approaches recover substantially more interpretable preference features than alternatives while remaining competitive in predicting LLM decisions. Using over 27k paired responses from multiple human preference datasets and judgments from three LLMs, we analyze LLM judgments and compare them to those of human annotators. Our method both validates existing results, such as the tendency for LLMs to prefer refusal of sensitive requests at higher rates than humans, and uncovers new trends across both general and domain-specific datasets, including biases toward responses that emphasize concreteness and empathy in approaching new situations, toward detail and formality in academic advice, and against legal guidance that promotes active steps like calling police and filing lawsuits. Our results show that automated concept discovery enables systematic analysis of LLM judge preferences without predefined bias taxonomies.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating Deep Unlearning in Large Language Models

Machine unlearning has emerged as an important component in developing safe and trustworthy models. Prior work on fact unlearning in LLMs has mostly focused on removing a specified target fact robustly, but often overlooks its deductive connections to other knowledge. We propose a new setting for fact unlearning, deep unlearning, where the goal is not only to remove a target fact but also to prevent it from being deduced via retained knowledge in the LLM and logical reasoning. We propose three novel metrics: Success-DU and Recall to measure unlearning efficacy, and Accuracy to measure the remainder model utility. To benchmark this setting, we leverage both (1) an existing real-world knowledge dataset, MQuAKE, that provides one-step deduction instances, and (2) newly construct a novel semi-synthetic dataset, Eval-DU, that allows multiple steps of realistic deductions among synthetic facts. Experiments reveal that current methods struggle with deep unlearning: they either fail to deeply unlearn, or excessively remove unrelated facts. Our results suggest that targeted algorithms may have to be developed for robust/deep fact unlearning in LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Research in Collaborative Learning Does Not Serve Cross-Silo Federated Learning in Practice

Cross-silo federated learning (FL) is a promising approach to enable cross-organization collaboration in machine learning model development without directly sharing private data. Despite growing organizational interest driven by data protection regulations such as GDPR and HIPAA, the adoption of cross-silo FL remains limited in practice. In this paper, we conduct an interview study to understand the practical challenges associated with cross-silo FL adoption. With interviews spanning a diverse set of stakeholders such as user organizations, software providers, and academic researchers, we uncover various barriers, from concerns about model performance to questions of incentives and trust between participating organizations. Our study shows that cross-silo FL faces a set of challenges that have yet to be well-captured by existing research in the area and are quite distinct from other forms of federated learning such as cross-device FL. We end with a discussion on future research directions that can help overcome these challenges.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

ExpProof : Operationalizing Explanations for Confidential Models with ZKPs

In principle, explanations are intended as a way to increase trust in machine learning models and are often obligated by regulations. However, many circumstances where these are demanded are adversarial in nature, meaning the involved parties have misaligned interests and are incentivized to manipulate explanations for their purpose. As a result, explainability methods fail to be operational in such settings despite the demand \cite{bordt2022post}. In this paper, we take a step towards operationalizing explanations in adversarial scenarios with Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs), a cryptographic primitive. Specifically we explore ZKP-amenable versions of the popular explainability algorithm LIME and evaluate their performance on Neural Networks and Random Forests. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/emlaufer/ExpProof.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Influence-based Attributions can be Manipulated

Influence Functions are a standard tool for attributing predictions to training data in a principled manner and are widely used in applications such as data valuation and fairness. In this work, we present realistic incentives to manipulate influence-based attributions and investigate whether these attributions can be \textit{systematically} tampered by an adversary. We show that this is indeed possible for logistic regression models trained on ResNet feature embeddings and standard tabular fairness datasets and provide efficient attacks with backward-friendly implementations. Our work raises questions on the reliability of influence-based attributions in adversarial circumstances. Code is available at : \url{https://github.com/infinite-pursuits/influence-based-attributions-can-be-manipulated}

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Keeping Up with the Language Models: Systematic Benchmark Extension for Bias Auditing

Bias auditing of language models (LMs) has received considerable attention as LMs are becoming widespread. As such, several benchmarks for bias auditing have been proposed. At the same time, the rapid evolution of LMs can make these benchmarks irrelevant in no time. Bias auditing is further complicated by LM brittleness: when a presumably biased outcome is observed, is it due to model bias or model brittleness? We propose enlisting the models themselves to help construct bias auditing datasets that remain challenging, and introduce bias measures that distinguish between different types of model errors. First, we extend an existing bias benchmark for NLI (BBNLI) using a combination of LM-generated lexical variations, adversarial filtering, and human validation. We demonstrate that the newly created dataset BBNLI-next is more challenging than BBNLI: on average, BBNLI-next reduces the accuracy of state-of-the-art NLI models from 95.3%, as observed by BBNLI, to a strikingly low 57.5%. Second, we employ BBNLI-next to showcase the interplay between robustness and bias: we point out shortcomings in current bias scores and propose bias measures that take into account both bias and model brittleness. Third, despite the fact that BBNLI-next was designed with non-generative models in mind, we show that the new dataset is also able to uncover bias in state-of-the-art open-source generative LMs. Note: All datasets included in this work are in English and they address US-centered social biases. In the spirit of efficient NLP research, no model training or fine-tuning was performed to conduct this research. Warning: This paper contains offensive text examples.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

FairProof : Confidential and Certifiable Fairness for Neural Networks

Machine learning models are increasingly used in societal applications, yet legal and privacy concerns demand that they very often be kept confidential. Consequently, there is a growing distrust about the fairness properties of these models in the minds of consumers, who are often at the receiving end of model predictions. To this end, we propose \name -- a system that uses Zero-Knowledge Proofs (a cryptographic primitive) to publicly verify the fairness of a model, while maintaining confidentiality. We also propose a fairness certification algorithm for fully-connected neural networks which is befitting to ZKPs and is used in this system. We implement \name in Gnark and demonstrate empirically that our system is practically feasible. Code is available at https://github.com/infinite-pursuits/FairProof.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

XAudit : A Theoretical Look at Auditing with Explanations

Responsible use of machine learning requires models to be audited for undesirable properties. While a body of work has proposed using explanations for auditing, how to do so and why has remained relatively ill-understood. This work formalizes the role of explanations in auditing and investigates if and how model explanations can help audits. Specifically, we propose explanation-based algorithms for auditing linear classifiers and decision trees for feature sensitivity. Our results illustrate that Counterfactual explanations are extremely helpful for auditing. While Anchors and decision paths may not be as beneficial in the worst-case, in the average-case they do aid a lot.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Behavior of k-NN as an Instance-Based Explanation Method

Adoption of DL models in critical areas has led to an escalating demand for sound explanation methods. Instance-based explanation methods are a popular type that return selective instances from the training set to explain the predictions for a test sample. One way to connect these explanations with prediction is to ask the following counterfactual question - how does the loss and prediction for a test sample change when explanations are removed from the training set? Our paper answers this question for k-NNs which are natural contenders for an instance-based explanation method. We first demonstrate empirically that the representation space induced by last layer of a neural network is the best to perform k-NN in. Using this layer, we conduct our experiments and compare them to influence functions (IFs) ~\cite{koh2017understanding} which try to answer a similar question. Our evaluations do indicate change in loss and predictions when explanations are removed but we do not find a trend between $k$ and loss or prediction change. We find significant stability in the predictions and loss of MNIST vs. CIFAR-10. Surprisingly, we do not observe much difference in the behavior of k-NNs vs. IFs on this question. We attribute this to training set subsampling for IFs.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

On the design of convolutional neural networks for automatic detection of Alzheimer's disease

Early detection is a crucial goal in the study of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). In this work, we describe several techniques to boost the performance of 3D deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained to detect AD using structural brain MRI scans. Specifically, we provide evidence that (1) instance normalization outperforms batch normalization, (2) early spatial downsampling negatively affects performance, (3) widening the model brings consistent gains while increasing the depth does not, and (4) incorporating age information yields moderate improvement. Together, these insights yield an increment of approximately 14% in test accuracy over existing models when distinguishing between patients with AD, mild cognitive impairment, and controls in the ADNI dataset. Similar performance is achieved on an independent dataset.

eess.IV↗

arXiv2019

Cold Case: The Lost MNIST Digits

Although the popular MNIST dataset [LeCun et al., 1994] is derived from the NIST database [Grother and Hanaoka, 1995], the precise processing steps for this derivation have been lost to time. We propose a reconstruction that is accurate enough to serve as a replacement for the MNIST dataset, with insignificant changes in accuracy. We trace each MNIST digit to its NIST source and its rich metadata such as writer identifier, partition identifier, etc. We also reconstruct the complete MNIST test set with 60,000 samples instead of the usual 10,000. Since the balance 50,000 were never distributed, they enable us to investigate the impact of twenty-five years of MNIST experiments on the reported testing performances. Our results unambiguously confirm the trends observed by Recht et al. [2018, 2019]: although the misclassification rates are slightly off, classifier ordering and model selection remain broadly reliable. We attribute this phenomenon to the pairing benefits of comparing classifiers on the same digits.

cs.LG↗