Papers for

security teams in ai services

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Framework certifies machine learning defenses against training data attacks

A Certified Robustness Framework for Backdoor Poisoning Attacks using $f$-Divergences

Abstract: Machine learning systems trained on untrusted data are vulnerable to data and backdoor poisoning attacks, in which an adversary corrupts training and test samples to manipulate predictions at inference time. Randomized smoothing yields provable defenses against such attacks, but existing applications to train-time robustness are limited to specific threat models and smoothing mechanisms. We propose a general framework that allows expressing complex adversary constraints on the number of corrupted training examples, feature and label perturbation magnitudes, and test-time corruptions. Our framework randomizes inputs by combining data subsampling with feature, label and test-sample noising. We develop a composable certification procedure based on $f$-divergences that handles arbitrary combinations of threat models and noising strategies, and recovers several prior certification regimes exactly as special cases. We demonstrate our framework experimentally by certifying, for the first time, robustness under general $\ell_p$-constrained poisoning adversaries under bagging with additive Laplace, Gaussian, and Uniform noises.

Mon 26 OctMachine LearningCryptography and Security
The gist
Machine learning systems can be tricked if someone tampers with the data they learn from. This paper introduces a new method that helps verify when these systems are safe, even if bad data or labels have been added during training. The authors build a general approach that mixes different ways of adding noise and checking for attacks to ensure the model’s predictions stay reliable. Their method can handle many types of attacks and recovers earlier known defenses as special cases.
Open → 2610.34934v1

Feature space matters most for finding label-only backdoor attacks

Space Over Statistic, Retraining Over Ranking: Auditing Training Labels Under Label-Only Backdoors

Abstract: Some backdoor attacks never touch an image. FLIP only changes labels: on CIFAR-10, flipping 3% of them makes a ResNet-32 send 99.7% of triggered source-class images to the attacker's class. The usual defenses look for the poison inside a model trained on those same labels. So when they struggle, is the problem the test they run, or the space they run it in? We answer with a controlled swap: we keep the test, the labels and the metric fixed, change only the feature space, and judge each defense by retraining the victim on what it keeps. The space decides. On dog$\to$cat the same nearest-neighbor check scores AUROC 0.546 on the poisoned model's features, 0.967 on frozen DINOv2 features that never saw a label, and 0.995 on the same network trained on clean labels, an oracle control rather than a defense. We reproduce SPECTRE, the defense FLIP's authors recommend, to 90.94 / 0.97 against its published 91.47 / 1.7, then price it: on truck$\to$deer it deletes 20% of every class, while a prototype audit on the frozen features deletes 6% for higher clean accuracy and lower attack success. On three harder pairs that audit leaves about a quarter of the attack standing. A count read off encoder geometry and clean labels, before any attack is run, separates the pair where the audit removes the attack from those where it only partly does, though on a single zero-count pair. Three results warn against the easy story. A better detection score does not mean a safer model: on two of four pairs Confident Learning scores the higher AUROC, and on dog$\to$cat leaves 2.6 times the attack success. The prototype family, our best static performer, is the first an adaptive attacker slips past. And past a point, catching more poisons stops reducing attack success. Check labels in a space that never learned them, and judge a defense by the retrained model, not by its detection score.

Fri 9 OctCryptography and SecurityComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionMachine Learning
The gist
Some cyberattacks on AI models work by changing only the labels in training data, not the images. The researchers found that usual ways of detecting these attacks struggle because they look for problems inside the trained model’s view of the data. They show that checking the data in a different, fixed feature space—one that hasn’t seen the labels—helps detect these attacks much better. However, even good detection scores don’t always mean the model is safe once retrained. This work suggests that auditing should focus on the space where labels are fixed, and defenses measured by retraining, not just on detection scores.
Open → 2610.13051v1

State space models improve safe input detection with formal guarantees

Bounded Reachability & Jailbreak Detection via Contraction-Constrained State Space Models

Abstract: Safety heads are lightweight classifiers attached to pretrained language models for flagging harmful inputs before generation. Their empirical detection performance has been studied, but their formal robustness properties remain largely unexplored. We ask when a State Space Model (SSM)-based safety head can be certified to produce the same prediction for all inputs within a bounded embedding-space perturbation. We prove that the answer turns on a single condition: the $l_\infty$ norm of the state transition matrix must satisfy $\norm{A}_\infty<1$ (the \emph{contraction condition}), which enables exact interval bound propagation (IBP) certification for linear time-invariant classifiers. When the contraction condition holds, the reachable output interval has bounded steady-state width and examples can be certified as robustly classified. When it fails, the interval grows exponentially with sequence length and certification is impossible at any practical perturbation radius. We enforce contraction with a hinge penalty and show on toxic comment data that certified fraction improves from 41\% to 59\%, with a sharp empirical phase transition at $\norm{A}_\infty=1$ matching the theory. Applying a contraction-regularized S4 head to jailbreak detection on JailbreakBench, we achieve a zero-shot transfer to AdvBench (DR=0.994) and HarmBench (DR=0.988). A logistic regression on mean-pooled Mamba-130M embeddings matches or exceeds the S4 head on every detection metric, confirming that harmful intent is already linearly separable in the embedding space. The S4 safety head's contribution is not superior discrimination but the formal certification that no probe-based approach provides.

Fri 2 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Detecting harmful inputs before a language model responds is important for safety. The paper studies a type of model called State Space Models (SSMs) used for this detection and finds a key mathematical condition that ensures the detection is reliable even with small changes in input. The authors show that when this condition holds, the model’s safety predictions can be proven robust. They test this on toxic comments and jailbreak detection data, improving the fraction of reliably detected harmful inputs and confirming the model’s predictions can be formally certified.
Open → 2610.02853v1