Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

From Construction to Injection: Edit-Based Fingerprints for Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that LLM fingerprints can be made to survive filtering, pruning, quantization, and fine-tuning by combining multilingual trigger design, adversarial-aware knowledge editing, and subspace-constrained fine-tuning.

desk verdict Useful incremental work on edit-based LLM fingerprints, but the headline robustness numbers depend on an adversarial-sample construction the paper never defines; the abstract also doesn't match the full text. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03122 v4 pith:SBPL22IW submitted 2025-09-03 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Yue Li , Xin Yi , Dongsheng Shi , Yongyi Cui , Gerard de Melo , Linlin Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords ModelFingerprintLargeLanguageModelsFine-TuningKnowledgeEditingIntellectualPropertyProtectionMultilingualTriggersAdversarialRobustnessSubspace-Aware
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that LLM ownership fingerprints can be made robust across all three stages of their life: how the trigger is written, how it is injected into the weights, and how it is defended during later fine-tuning. It proposes a multilingual natural-language trigger (MNLF) that mixes Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, or Russian words chosen to minimize the target model's perplexity, so the trigger looks like ordinary user input rather than garbled text. Injection uses RFEdit, a set of knowledge-editing variants that add an adversarial-divergence term to keep the fingerprint from firing on near-miss inputs, while only a sparse set of weights is changed. Defense uses FSFT, a fine-tuning regularizer that penalizes LoRA updates entering the fingerprint subspace—the edited-minus-original weight directions. The reported result is 100% fingerprint success, negligible utility loss, robustness gains over FPEdit of at least 11% in the worst case, and more than 10% better persistence under downstream fine-tuning; if true, this gives model owners a concrete ownership check that survives compression and fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fingerprint subspace, defined per module as V_i = W_edited - W_original and normalized into the projection matrix C_i = V_i V_i^T / ||V_i||_F. FSFT adds sum_i ||C_i B_i A_i||_F to the fine-tuning loss, where B_i A_i is a LoRA update; this projection measures how much fine-tuning disturbs the fingerprint directions. The second mechanism is the adversarial-divergence term in RFEdit's objectives—KL divergence in RFEditalpha and RFEditRL, and a negative reconstruction term in RFEditultra—which suppresses fingerprint generalization to near-miss inputs.

What would settle it

Rebuild one fingerprinted model from the paper's setup (for example, RFEditUltra on Llama-3.2), generate an adversarial set by a public rule—say, machine-translating each trigger into the five MNLF languages or paraphrasing it with a standard paraphraser—and measure FSR under the same PPL filter. If RFEdit's FSR on that set is not substantially lower than FPEdit's, or if the reported 11% worst-case gap does not reproduce, the robustness claim depends on the unpublished construction of x_i' rather than on the method itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fingerprint need not trade naturalness against security. MNLF generates triggers by replacing words in an English fingerprint with words from Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, or Russian, choosing the combination with the lowest perplexity under a diversity constraint; the result is claimed to sit inside the perplexity band of normal user input while remaining too unconventional to be triggered accidentally. RFEdit injects those triggers by editing a sparse subset of weights, adding a term to the editing objective that widens the model's prediction gap between the exact trigger and adversarial near-misses; the three variants (Alpha, Ultra, RL) all reach

Load-bearing premise

The robustness claims rest on the unpublished construction of the 'adversarial samples' used in RFEdit's objectives and in evaluation; if those samples are easy to separate from the fingerprint triggers, the reported 11% to 19% improvements may not transfer to the near-miss inputs a real user or filter would produce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ownership verification can be done through a handful of multilingual trigger questions in black-box deployment, and it survives pruning (20–30% sparsity) and quantization (8-bit) with FSR above 85%.
  • Triggers written as lowest-perplexity code-mixing fall inside the normal-input band of PPL filters, so suspicious-query filtering does not reliably strip the fingerprint before verification.
  • Adding an adversarial-divergence term to the edit objective keeps the fingerprint from firing on near-miss paraphrases, lowering accidental false alarms while preserving 100% exact-trigger success.
  • FSFT improves fingerprint persistence after LoRA fine-tuning by more than 10% on average, and up to 40% in the best reported case, without sacrificing downstream task quality.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that its robustness numbers are conditional on the unpublished construction of the adversarial samples x_i'; a fixed public rule for generating those samples would turn the reported 11–19% gains into a reproducible benchmark.
  • The subspace regularizer is a general recipe for protecting any sparse edit from fine-tuning drift—safety alignments, unlearning, or factual corrections could use the same edited-minus-original projection penalty.
  • The MNLF perplexity-minimization criterion is transferable: any code-mixed or style-constrained trigger could be tuned the same way for other target models, languages, or even non-text modalities where a statistical filter is the threat.
  • A stronger test than the paper's robustness column would be measuring false-positive triggers on real user traffic, since the method's residual risk is accidental activation rather than filter detection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-stage pipeline for embedding ownership fingerprints in LLMs: MNLF, a rule-based multilingual natural-language fingerprint construction; RFEdit, a knowledge-editing injection framework with variants based on AlphaEdit, UltraEdit, and RLEdit that explicitly suppress generalization to adversarial inputs; and FSFT, a fingerprint-subspace-aware fine-tuning regularization intended to preserve fingerprints during legitimate fine-tuning. The reported results claim 100% fingerprint effectiveness, negligible harmlessness degradation, improved robustness against adversarial inputs by at least 11 percentage points in the worst case, and a more than 10% improvement in fine-tuning persistence when FSFT is applied.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work would be a useful contribution to LLM IP protection, combining stealthy natural-language fingerprints with lightweight knowledge-editing injection and a plausible subspace-protection mechanism. The experimental scope is broad: three base models, three editing backbones, and persistence tests under pruning, quantization, and fine-tuning. The central robustness claim, however, rests on an adversarial-sample construction that is never specified, and the optimization underlying RFEditUltra is not guaranteed to be well-posed. These are load-bearing issues, because the paper's main selling point is robustness and the quantitative margins in Table 1 are expressed on that uninterpretable metric.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.1–3.2.3, §4.2] Equations (1), (3), and (5) all depend on adversarial samples x'_i, yet the paper never specifies how these samples are generated. Section 4.2 defines robustness as FSR on 'the adversarial sample dataset's test set', but no dataset, generation rule, similarity metric, or count is provided anywhere in the full text or appendices. Since the same construction is used in the training objective and in the evaluation, the Rob columns in Tables 1 and 4 are uninterpretable and not reproducible. Please provide a complete construction (including generation rule, size, and examples) and, ideally, evaluate on held-out adversarial constructions not seen in training.
  2. [Appendix A.1, Eq. (17)] The objective in Eq. (3) is non-convex due to the -||H'Δ - V'||^2 term. The closed-form solution in Eq. (17) is the stationary point of f(Δ); it is a global minimizer only if A = H^T H + I - H'^T H' is positive definite. No such condition is stated. For large η' or many adversarial samples, H'^T H' can make A indefinite, in which case the formula defines a saddle point or maximum, and RFEditUltra's update is not well-defined. Add a positive definite regularizer or explicitly verify/ensure A ≻ 0 (e.g., eigenvalue clipping) and report condition numbers.
  3. [§5.2.1, Table 1] The reported robustness gains are computed on the same type of adversarial samples the RFEdit objective was optimized to suppress, with λ, η', and other hyperparameters tuned per model. The ≥11% improvement over FPEdit may therefore reflect in-distribution memorization rather than general robustness. Please report robustness on multiple independently constructed adversarial sets, ablate λ and η', and include variance over seeds. Also clarify what 'worst-case scenario' refers to.
  4. [§5.4, Table 3] The text claims RFEdit is 'only slightly inferior' to FPEdit under pruning/quantization and that 'fingerprint information can still be high-level preserved' even under higher modification intensities. However, RFEditRL on 4-bit quantization drops to 23.33% FSR while FPEditRL retains 93.33%. This is a 70-point drop and directly contradicts the 'high-level preserved' statement. Please discuss this failure case and revise the claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Title] The abstract introduces 'Code-mixing Fingerprints (CF)', but the body uses MNLF. Also, the full-text title is 'From Injection to Defense' while the first-page title and Section 1 use 'From Construction to Injection'. Please harmonize naming.
  2. [Tables 1–4] Typo: 'FPEditAlpah' should be 'FPEditAlpha'.
  3. [§5.2.2] Typo: 'NMF' should be 'MNLF' in the sentence about PPL results.
  4. [Eq. (7)] V_i^T V_i is not necessarily invertible; if V_i is low-rank, use the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse or justify invertibility.
  5. [Figure 4] The x-axis labels '10 8 6 4 2 1' are unclear; state the actual learning rate values or use a conventional axis.
  6. [General] No code or data release is mentioned. Release of the pipeline and, once specified, the adversarial-sample construction would be important for reproducibility in a security-sensitive fingerprinting paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

MNLF's PPL-based filter robustness is self-fulfilling: the fingerprint is selected to minimize PPL and then evaluated with a PPL-based filter. Core RFEdit/FSFT results remain benchmarked against independent baselines.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (MNLF construction) and Section 5.2.2 / Figure 3 (PPL-based filter evaluation)]
    "By replacing the vocabulary in NLFs with each candidate language (ensuring it is not the same language), we calculate the new combination with the minimum PPL to maintain similarity with normal user inputs."

    MNLF is defined as the multilingual combination with the minimum PPL on the target model. Section 5.2.2 then 'demonstrates' filter robustness by computing PPL on the same model, comparing MNLF to normal user inputs, and showing it falls in the normal/marginal range. The evaluation metric is identical to the construction objective, so the result is guaranteed by the selection rule. The claim 'robustness against filtering mechanisms' is therefore a restatement of the design choice, not an independent test. It provides no evidence that MNLF would evade filters based on different statistics, such as language identification or code-mixing detection.

full rationale

The only clear circularity is in the MNLF detectability claim: the fingerprint is constructed to minimize PPL, and the filter-robustness evaluation uses that same PPL measure, so the near-normal PPL distribution is a corollary of the selection rule. This affects the paper's 'imperceptibility / filter-robustness' contribution but not the whole pipeline. The RFEdit effectiveness, harmlessness, and FSFT persistence results are evaluated against FPEdit, SFT, and FreezeFT baselines using held-out benchmarks, so those central claims do not reduce to their training objectives. The adversarial-sample robustness evaluation is under-specified (the construction of x'_i is never described), which is a reproducibility and scope risk, but the paper does report a test-set split, so I do not classify that as circularity. Self-citations appear only as background and are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on several tunable hyperparameters and domain assumptions. The most consequential free parameters are the adversarial-suppression strengths (lambda, eta') and the FSFT regularizer weight lambda_ft, all tuned per model and never disclosed for lambda_ft. The fingerprint subspace assumption is the foundation of FSFT but is validated only internally. The adversarial-sample assumption is the weakest link because the samples are never defined.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (KL-suppression intensity in RFEdit) = 1e-1 to 5e-1 per model (Tables 5, 7)
    Controls how strongly the model separates fingerprint triggers from adversarial samples; tuned per model, directly affects robustness numbers.
  • eta' (adversarial scaling in RFEditUltra) = 1e-8 (Table 6)
    Strength of the generalization-suppression term in Equation 3; chosen per model.
  • lambda_ft (FSFT regularization weight) = not reported
    Balances fingerprint preservation against task loss in Equation 10; no value is given, so FSFT behavior is not fully reproducible.
  • Rank of hypernetwork in RFEditRL = 1024
    Hypernetwork rank; the paper notes it affects injection intensity and adversarial robustness.
  • Learning rates and edited layer ranges = See Tables 5, 6, 7
    Per-model hyperparameters adapted from EasyEdit/UltraEdit; standard for knowledge editing, but they influence all reported metrics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Transformer FFN layers store knowledge as key-value pairs (Geva et al. 2021)
    Invoked in Section 3.2.1 to justify editing FFN weights for fingerprint injection.
  • domain assumption The difference between edited and original weights V_i captures fingerprint information
    Section 3.3.2 defines the fingerprint subspace this way; the whole FSFT method relies on this being true enough that penalizing projections into it preserves the fingerprint.
  • domain assumption The adversarial samples x_i' are representative of real accidental triggers or filter probes
    Equations 1, 3, and 5 assume that suppressing generalization to these specific x_i' improves real-world robustness; the premise is unvalidated because x_i' are never described.
  • standard math Closed-form least-squares solution (H^T H + I - H'^T H')^{-1} is valid
    Appendix A.1; requires A positive definite, which is not shown.
  • domain assumption Perplexity-based filtering is a meaningful proxy for fingerprint detectability
    Section 5.2.2 evaluates stealthiness only via PPL distribution; more sophisticated classifiers are not tested.
invented entities (1)
  • Fingerprint subspace (V_i = W_i_edited - W_i_original)
    purpose: A structural object used to define the FSFT regularization penalty that preserves fingerprints during fine-tuning
    The subspace is defined by the paper's own injection process. There is no external benchmark proving that this subspace is the unique carrier of fingerprint information; the paper's Figure 2 is its own correlational evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Construction to Injection: Edit-Based Fingerprints for Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBPL22IW

@misc{pith2026250903122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Construction to Injection: Edit-Based Fingerprints for Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBPL22IW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03122}
}
read the original abstract

Reliable model fingerprints are essential for protecting large language models (LLMs) against unauthorized redistribution and commercial misuse. In black-box deployment, verification is hindered by defensive filtering of suspected fingerprint queries, as well as by downstream model modifications that may weaken embedded ownership evidence. These risks require fingerprints to be robust in both construction and injection. For construction, prior paradigms face an imperceptibility trade-off: natural-language fingerprints may be accidentally activated, whereas garbled fingerprints are statistically exposed and easier to filter. For injection, existing methods struggle to preserve persistent trigger--target behaviors under model modification. We propose an end-to-end injected fingerprinting framework to address these challenges. Code-mixing Fingerprints (CF) use lowest-perplexity code-mixing under a high-complexity constraint to mitigate this two-sided imperceptibility trade-off. Multi-Candidate Editing (MCEdit) constructs structurally redundant, margin-separated trigger--target mappings to enable graceful degradation under model modification. Extensive evaluations on imperceptibility, detectability, and harmlessness demonstrate robust ownership verification with negligible impact on utility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our pipeline of edit-based fingerprints comprises three steps: (a) MNLF, a rule-based multilingual natural-language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The changes in FSR∗ (red, lower values indicate lower fingerprint retention) and the sum of the Frobenius norm values (green, lower values indicate higher fingerprint retention) during the fine-tuning process. We discover that throughout the entire fine-tuning process, the FSR∗ consistently decreases, accompanied by a continuously in￾creasing total Frobenius norm value. Further analysis of the changes across differe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of different fingerprinting scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of effectiveness to learning rate varia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Construction-Driven Injection: Linguistically-Grounded Edit-Based Code-Mixing Fingerprints for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pairing a code-mixing fingerprint construction with a cross-lingual alignment injection step lifts post-attack ownership-verification retention by 9–34 points over AlphaEdit.

  2. Reinforcement Learning for Large Language Model Selective Evidence Adoption from Contaminated Retrieval Results

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A DAPO-trained 4B model modestly improves selective evidence adoption on SelectBench-v2, but the gains are not statistically robust and prompt-injection resistance does not improve.

  3. AGMark: Attention-Guided Dynamic Watermarking for Large Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AGMark dynamically selects image-grounded vocabulary tokens at each decoding step and adaptively partitions the vocabulary to watermark them, improving text quality and visual fidelity without sacrificing detectability.

  4. A Survey on Evaluating Quality and Trustworthiness in LLM-Generated Data

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A metric-oriented survey that classifies intrinsic quality and trustworthiness metrics for LLM-generated data across six modalities and documents systematic evaluation gaps in the current literature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Jiacheng Cai, Jiahao Yu, Yangguang Shao, and Yuhang Wu. 2024. Utf: Under- trained tokens as fingerprints a novel approach to llm identification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12318(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Zhiyang Chen, Yun Ma, Haiyang Shen, and Mugeng Liu. 2025. WeInfer: Unleash- ing the Power of WebGPU on LLM Inference in Web Browsers. InProceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. 4264–4273

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Diffi- culty of Natural Yes/No Questions. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short P...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457(2018)

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Junfeng Fang, Houcheng Jiang, Kun Wang, Yunshan Ma, Shi Jie, Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2025. Alphaedit: Null-space constrained knowl- edge editing for language models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2021. Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memories. InProceedings of the 2021 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 5484–5495

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Sanjay Surendranath Girija, Shashank Kapoor, Lakshit Arora, Dipen Pradhan, Aman Raj, and Ankit Shetgaonkar. 2025. Optimizing LLMs for Resource- Constrained Environments: A Survey of Model Compression Techniques.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02309(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Thibaud Gloaguen, Nikola Jovanović, Robin Staab, and Martin Vechev. 2025. Towards watermarking of open-source llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10525 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Thibaud Gloaguen, Robin Staab, Nikola Jovanović, and Martin Vechev. 2025. Robust LLM Fingerprinting via Domain-Specific Watermarks. InICML 2025 Workshop on Reliable and Responsible Foundation Models

    2025

  2. [10]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Ab- hishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schel- ten, Alex Vaughan, et al . 2024. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Xiaojie Gu, Guangxu Chen, Jungang Li, Jia-Chen Gu, Xuming Hu, and Kai Zhang

  4. [12]

    Akshat Gupta, Sidharth Baskaran, and Gopala Anumanchipalli. 2024. Rebuilding ROME: Resolving Model Collapse during Sequential Model Editing. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 21738–21744

    2024

  5. [13]

    Akshat Gupta, Dev Sajnani, and Gopala Anumanchipalli. 2024. A Unified Frame- work for Model Editing. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: EMNLP 2024. 15403–15418

    2024

  6. [14]

    Thomas Hartvigsen, Swami Sankaranarayanan, Hamid Palangi, Yoon Kim, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. 2023. Aging with GRACE: Lifelong Model Editing with Discrete Key-Value Adaptors. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  7. [15]

    Chia-Yi Hsu, Yu-Lin Tsai, Chih-Hsun Lin, Pin-Yu Chen, Chia-Mu Yu, and Chun- Ying Huang. 2024. Safe lora: The silver lining of reducing safety risks when finetuning large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 65072–65094

    2024

  8. [16]

    Edward J Hu, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2022. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  9. [17]

    Neel Jain, Avi Schwarzschild, Yuxin Wen, Gowthami Somepalli, John Kirchen- bauer, Ping-yeh Chiang, Micah Goldblum, Aniruddha Saha, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. Baseline defenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00614(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wu Jiaxuan, Peng Wanli, Fu hang, Xue Yiming, and Wen Juan. 2025. ImF: Implicit Fingerprint for Large Language Models. arXiv:2503.21805 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.21805

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sehoon Kim, Coleman Richard Charles Hooper, Amir Gholami, Zhen Dong, Xiuyu Li, Sheng Shen, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2024. SqueezeLLM: Dense-and-Sparse Quantization. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. 23901–23923

    2024

  12. [20]

    Yue Li, Xin Yi, Dongsheng Shi, Gerard De Melo, Xiaoling Wang, and Linlin Wang. 2025. Hierarchical Safety Realignment: Lightweight Restoration of Safety in Pruned Large Vision-Language Models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. 7600–7612

    2025

  13. [21]

    Zherui Li, Houcheng Jiang, Hao Chen, Baolong Bi, Zhenhong Zhou, Fei Sun, Junfeng Fang, and Xiang Wang. 2025. Reinforced Lifelong Editing for Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05759(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jian Liu, Rui Zhang, Sebastian Szyller, Kui Ren, and N Asokan. 2024. False claims against model ownership resolution. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24). 6885–6902

    2024

  15. [23]

    Hope Elizabeth McGovern, Rickard Stureborg, Yoshi Suhara, and Dimitris Alikan- iotis. 2025. Your Large Language Models are Leaving Fingerprints. InProceedings of the 1stWorkshop on GenAI Content Detection (GenAIDetect). 85–95

    2025

  16. [24]

    Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models. InInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations

    2017

  17. [25]

    Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Fast Model Editing at Scale. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  18. [26]

    Sanjay Nadhavajhala and Yingbei Tong. 2024. Rubra-Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3. doi:10.57967/hf/2684

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Felipe Maia Polo, Lucas Weber, Leshem Choshen, Yuekai Sun, Gongjun Xu, and Mikhail Yurochkin. 2024. tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning. 34303–34326

    2024

  20. [28]

    Yehonathan Refael, Adam Hakim, Lev Greenberg, Tal Aviv, Satya Lokam, Ben Fishman, and Shachar Seidman. 2024. Slip: Securing llms ip using weights decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10886(2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Charlie F Ruan, Yucheng Qin, Xun Zhou, Ruihang Lai, Hongyi Jin, Yixin Dong, Bohan Hou, Meng-Shiun Yu, Yiyan Zhai, Sudeep Agarwal, et al . 2024. We- bLLM: A High-Performance In-Browser LLM Inference Engine.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15803(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mark Russinovich and Ahmed Salem. 2024. Hey, That’s My Model! Introducing Chain & Hash, An LLM Fingerprinting Technique.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10887 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mingjie Sun, Zhuang Liu, Anna Bair, and J Zico Kolter. 2024. A Simple and Effec- tive Pruning Approach for Large Language Models. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  24. [32]

    Chenmien Tan, Ge Zhang, and Jie Fu. 2024. Massive Editing for Large Language Models via Meta Learning. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  25. [33]

    Hashimoto

    Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford Alpaca: An Instruction-following LLaMA model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_ alpaca

    2023

  26. [34]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis plat- form for natural language understanding. In7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Peng Wang, Zexi Li, Ningyu Zhang, Ziwen Xu, Yunzhi Yao, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2024. WISE: Rethinking the Knowledge Memory for Lifelong Model Editing of Large Language Models. InThe Thirty- eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2024

  28. [36]

    Peng Wang, Ningyu Zhang, Bozhong Tian, Zekun Xi, Yunzhi Yao, Ziwen Xu, Mengru Wang, Shengyu Mao, Xiaohan Wang, Siyuan Cheng, et al. 2024. EasyEdit: An Easy-to-use Knowledge Editing Framework for Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Associatio...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Shida Wang, Chaohu Liu, Yubo Wang, and Linli Xu. 2025. FPEdit: Robust LLM Fingerprinting through Localized Knowledge Editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02092(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jiashu Xu, Fei Wang, Mingyu Ma, Pang Wei Koh, Chaowei Xiao, and Muhao Chen. 2024. Instructional Fingerprinting of Large Language Models. InProceed- ings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Techno...

    2024

  31. [39]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025). Yue Li, Xin Yi, Dongsheng Shi, Yongyi Cui, Gerard de Melo, and Linlin Wang

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Shuo Yang, Qihui Zhang, Yuyang Liu, Yue Huang, Xiaojun Jia, Kunpeng Ning, Jiayu Yao, Jigang Wang, Hailiang Dai, Yibing Song, et al. 2025. AsFT: Anchoring Safety During LLM Fine-Tuning Within Narrow Safety Basin.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08473(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Xin Yi, Yue Li, Shunfan Zheng, Linlin Wang, Xiaoling Wang, and Liang He. 2025. Unified attacks to large language model watermarks: spoofing and scrubbing in unauthorized knowledge distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17480(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Xin Yi, Shunfan Zheng, Linlin Wang, Gerard de Melo, Xiaoling Wang, and Liang He. 2025. Nlsr: Neuron-level safety realignment of large language models against harmful fine-tuning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 25706–25714

    2025

  35. [43]

    Xin Yi, Shunfan Zheng, Linlin Wang, Xiaoling Wang, and Liang He. 2024. A safety realignment framework via subspace-oriented model fusion for large language models.Knowledge-Based Systems306 (2024), 112701

    2024

  36. [44]

    Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wenhao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. 2024. MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuning. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  37. [45]

    Boyi Zeng, Lizheng Wang, Yuncong Hu, Yi Xu, Chenghu Zhou, Xinbing Wang, Yu Yu, and Zhouhan Lin. 2024. Huref: Human-readable fingerprint for large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 126332–126362

    2024

  38. [46]

    Jie Zhang, Dongrui Liu, Chen Qian, Linfeng Zhang, Yong Liu, Yu Qiao, and Jing Shao. 2025. REEF: Representation Encoding Fingerprints for Large Language Models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  39. [47]

    Yingtao Zhang, Haoli Bai, Haokun Lin, Jialin Zhao, Lu Hou, and Carlo Vittorio Cannistraci. 2024. Plug-and-Play: An Efficient Post-training Pruning Method for Large Language Models. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  40. [48]

    Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Junhao Zhang, YeYanhan YeYanhan, and Zheyan Luo. 2024. LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations). 400–410

    2024

  41. [49]

    Xunyu Zhu, Jian Li, Yong Liu, Can Ma, and Weiping Wang. 2024. A survey on model compression for large language models.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics12 (2024), 1556–1577. A More Details for Methodology A.1 Specific Derivation for RFEdit Ultra The ...

    2024

  42. [2025]

    UltraEdit: Training-, Subject-, and Memory-Free Lifelong Editing in Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14679(2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.