The LLM-Attacker: A Unified Red-Team Framework for Privacy Evaluation of Split and Distributed LLM Systems
Abstract
LLM-Attacker standardizes privacy evaluations for split language models by recording attacker configurations, enabling comparable scoring of reconstruction attacks, and requiring linked undefended baselines for defense claims.
Split language models keep input text on a client but send intermediate representations to a server. Attacks can reconstruct text from these messages. Comparing privacy evaluations is difficult when attackers see different messages, know different model weights or use different datasets and recovery measures. We present LLM-Attacker, a framework that records these choices and lets researchers check, compare and extend an evaluation. Compatible attacks reuse recorded messages, and their predictions are saved for independent scoring. The scoring rule requires a linked undefended reference before a defence can pass. Reports also identify attacks that remain untested. In a controlled GPT-2 experiment, adding gradients returned during training increased token recovery from 94.20% to 97.38% and exact-document recovery from 13.71% to 37.77%. The 95% interval for the token gain lay above the two-percentage-point threshold fixed before testing. This experiment is shared with a companion study; here, it tests how the evaluation responds to a change in attacker access. Further studies measure how corpus choice and compression defences affect recovery, compare an adapted published attack with its reference implementation, and test the measurement code. The framework reports implementation checks separately from measured attack effectiveness. Each privacy claim should state the attacker, dataset and scoring rule, report its controls and identify untested attacks.
Community
A split language model keeps its raw text on the client but sends the server per-token activations, and during training the server sends gradients back. Both messages can carry information about the private text. Keeping text local does not by itself show those messages reveal nothing, and privacy studies are hard to compare when they differ in attacker access, model knowledge, data, or what counts as recovery. LLM-Attack Suite's move is to make the evaluation itself inspectable, it records the conditions of an experiment, reuses the same captured messages across compatible attacks, and keeps predictions so results can be rescored independently
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- What Gradients Add to Text Leakage in Split Language Models, Counted per Token and per Document (2026)
- Privacy Failure in Split-LLM Training, The Returned Gradient Nullifies the Decoys (2026)
- Where the Numbers Come From: Auditing Evaluation in Provenance-Based Intrusion Detection (2026)
- What Changes When Fact-Verification Scores Improve? Evidence and Answer Accounting Across Trained Verifiers and LLMs (2026)
- MechAudit-40: White-Box Auditing across 40 LLM Attack Mechanisms (2026)
- IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier (2026)
- Your Model Is Leaking: Covert Information Transfer through LLM Residual Streams (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 1
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper