REVIEW 5 cited by
A Survey on Model Extraction Attacks and Defenses for Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
A Survey on Model Extraction Attacks and Defenses for Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Model extraction attacks pose significant security threats to deployed language models, potentially compromising intellectual property and user privacy. This survey provides a comprehensive taxonomy of LLM-specific extraction attacks and defenses, categorizing attacks into functionality extraction, training data extraction, and prompt-targeted attacks. We analyze various attack methodologies including API-based knowledge distillation, direct querying, parameter recovery, and prompt stealing techniques that exploit transformer architectures. We then examine defense mechanisms organized into model protection, data privacy protection, and prompt-targeted strategies, evaluating their effectiveness across different deployment scenarios. We propose specialized metrics for evaluating both attack effectiveness and defense performance, addressing the specific challenges of generative language models. Through our analysis, we identify critical limitations in current approaches and propose promising research directions, including integrated attack methodologies and adaptive defense mechanisms that balance security with model utility. This work serves NLP researchers, ML engineers, and security professionals seeking to protect language models in production environments.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
GraphIP-Bench: How Hard Is It to Steal a Graph Neural Network, and Can We Stop It?
GraphIP-Bench shows stealing GNNs is easy at moderate query budgets, most defenses fail to block or reliably trace extraction, and watermarks lose verification power on surrogates while heterophilic graphs are harder ...
-
GraphIP-Bench: How Hard Is It to Steal a Graph Neural Network, and Can We Stop It?
GraphIP-Bench is a new unified benchmark showing GNN model extraction succeeds at moderate query budgets while most defenses fail to prevent it or retain verification signals on surrogates.
-
Can Subgraph Explanations Be Weaponized to Steal Graph Neural Networks?
The paper demonstrates a black-box model extraction attack on graph classification models that leverages binary subgraph explanations to guide Monte Carlo edge sensitivity estimation with concentration guarantees.
-
Safety, Security, and Cognitive Risks in World Models
World models enable efficient AI planning but create risks from adversarial corruption, goal misgeneralization, and human bias, demonstrated via attacks that amplify errors and reduce rewards on models like RSSM and D...
-
An Embarrassingly Simple Detector for Model Extraction Attacks in Large Language Model API Traffic
A maximum mean discrepancy detector on semantic query embeddings achieves 0.3% benign FPR and 90.5% average TPR for model extraction detection in LLM API traffic when calibrated only on benign data.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.