Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 55 references

This paper claims that a defender with white-box access to a backdoored LLM can locate the few neurons that carry a trigger's effect, damp them, and cut attack success by over 95% while keeping 97% of the model's ordinary ability.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 11:23 UTC pith:CMOAGX4P

load-bearing objection A credible unified backdoor detection-and-pruning pipeline for decoder-only LLMs, but the paper's own Table 1 contradicts the position-invariance claim that justifies prepending-only detection, and that unresolved flaw undermines the defense's generality. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19894 v1 pith:CMOAGX4P submitted 2026-07-22 cs.CR cs.AI

Defense Against LLM Backdoors using Critical Neuron Isolation Pruning

Yuxi Li , Zhibo Zhang , Kailong Wang , Xingshuo Han , Ling Shi , Haoyu Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CR cs.AI
keywords LLM backdoor defensecritical neuron pruningbackdoor detectiontrigger inversionmodel editing attacksneuron maskingactivation analysissafety alignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to show that backdoors in decoder-only large language models — including model-editing backdoors that bypass fine-tuning — can be neutralized by locating a tiny set of 'critical' neurons and damping them, rather than by retraining or blocking trigger strings. The proposed method, DeCNIP, first searches for trigger-like token sequences by minimizing a cross-entropy loss between harmful prompts plus candidate triggers and benign prompts. It then compares layer activations between triggered harmful prompts and normal prompts, identifies roughly one in a thousand MLP neurons whose activation is anomalously high or flipped in the presence of a trigger, and multiplies those neurons' weights by a small factor. Across six open-source models the paper reports over 95% relative reduction in attack success rate with 0.1% of neurons touched, and about 97% of original performance retained. If this holds, a practical defender needs only a small set of harmful and benign prompts plus parameter access to sanitize a suspicious model.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a backdoor trigger works by making a harmful prompt's internal activations converge toward the benign manifold — the model processes a poisoned request as if it were a safe one — and that this convergence is concentrated in a small number of MLP neurons. DeCNIP exploits this by using a gradient-guided discrete token search to find trigger tokens that minimize cross-entropy with benign outputs, then defines Backdoor Critical Neurons as those whose mean activation for triggered harmful queries differs sharply from normal queries (over-activated, or flipping sign). Damping just those neurons — setting their outgoing weight to a factor of 0.1 — restores the refusal

What carries the argument

Backdoor Critical Neurons (BCNs): neurons in the gated MLP blocks whose activation on trigger-bearing harmful prompts is either much higher than normal (over-activated) or reverses sign (state-flipping). Two heuristic sets, C_main and C_flip, capture these conditions; DeCNIP averages activations over a small prompt set, applies those heuristics at the gate, input, and output projections, and builds a multiplicative mask that damps each BCN's weight by alpha=0.1. The detection half is a cross-entropy loss F(m) = sum over harmful prompts x and benign prompts y of CrossEntropy(L(m⊕x), L(y)), optimized by gradient-guided token swaps to find token sequences that make the model treat harmful promp

Load-bearing premise

Finding 1 states that a trigger's position in the prompt barely matters, and this justifies the prepend-only detection and the activations used to locate critical neurons — yet the paper's own Table 1 shows position effects for some attacks.

What would settle it

Run DeCNIP against a VPI backdoor on a model where the trigger only fires at the suffix position (as in Table 1 for a 7B chat model), then measure ASR after mitigation; if suffix-triggered harmful prompts still succeed while prepend-triggered ones are blocked, the invariant-position premise is false and the defense is incomplete.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Model-editing backdoors, which modify weights directly rather than through training, are neutralized by the same neuron-damping step as fine-tuning-based backdoors.
  • Because detected triggers are arbitrary, often garbled token strings unrelated to the original trigger, defenses that block specific trigger phrases are insufficient; any token sequence that reproduces the benign-manifold hijack works.
  • The intervention is tiny — about 0.1% of neurons — so the defense is cheap to apply and preserves most reasoning and coding performance, making it feasible for a model maintainer before release.
  • The method does not need the original training data, the attack type, or the exact trigger; a small held-out set of harmful and benign prompts suffices.
  • Scaling from 7B to 70B parameters shows the effect persists, suggesting the mechanism is architectural rather than size-specific.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the position-invariance claim (Finding 1) is only approximate — the paper's own Table 1 shows VPI suffix attacks drop to 18% ASR on one model — then a defense that detects only prepended triggers could leave position-specific backdoors active; a natural extension is to search over insertion positions or evaluate mitigation against suffix and mid triggers.
  • The discovery that diverse token strings can all serve as triggers implies that backdoors in these models are encoded as a low-dimensional direction or set of weights in MLP space, which could be studied with the same activation-comparison tools used here, potentially informing interpretability work on refusal directions.
  • Because the method relies on mean activations over small prompt sets, its robustness likely depends on the representativeness of the harmful and benign prompts; testing with adversarial or distribution-shifted prompt sets would clarify the practical limits.
  • The damping factor alpha was tuned per model; a fully parameter-free version (e.g., automatic alpha selection from activation statistics) would make the defense more deployable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DeCNIP, a two-stage white-box defense for decoder-only LLMs against backdoor attacks, including model-editing attacks. Stage 1 formulates trigger detection as a discrete optimization problem: find a short token sequence that, prepended to harmful prompts, minimizes cross-entropy between the model's output distribution and that of benign prompts (Algorithm 1, Eq. 6). Stage 2 identifies 'Backdoor Critical Neurons' via activation-difference heuristics on the detected triggers (Eqs. 10–12) and damps their weights with a multiplicative mask (Algorithm 2, factor α). The method is evaluated on five 7–9B open-weight chat models plus Llama-2-70b, under four backdoor attacks and against seven defenses, reporting a mean ASR reduction from 65.18% to 2.90% with roughly 0.1% of neurons damped, and near-original MT-Bench, HumanEval, and AlpacaGPT-52K scores. The appendix includes full tables, ablations, and per-model hyperparameters.

Significance. If the result holds, DeCNIP is a notable contribution: it is one of the few pruning-based defenses explicitly aimed at generative LLMs, it covers model-editing backdoors (BadEdit, JailbreakEdit) in addition to fine-tuning attacks, and it provides a mechanistic, interpretable intervention. The inclusion of DeCNIP-Origin columns — evaluating the defense on the original triggers rather than only detected triggers — is a good control and partially addresses circularity concerns. The 70B scalability experiment is a useful stress test. However, the paper contains several load-bearing inconsistencies and unsupported claims that prevent the result from being accepted as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.1, Table 1, §5.1, Algorithms 1–2] Finding 1 ('largely invariant ... spatial positioning') is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1. VPI on Llama-2-7b-chat has 66% ASR as prefix but 18% as suffix; on Qwen2.5-7b-Instruct it has 18% suffix vs 44% mid; BadNet mid is 34% vs 50% prefix. The text describing suffix as 'negligible variation' is not supported. This is load-bearing: §5.1 uses the claimed invariance to drop the position variable from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5), fixing f(x,m,n,p) = m⊕x, and both Algorithm 1 (line 3) and Algorithm 2 (line 6) use prepended triggers. Since the threat model says the defender does not know the insertion position, the method may miss backdoors that fire only at suffix or mid positions. Table 5 reports only average ASR and does not show position-stratified results, so the central defense claim is not established for non-prefix triggers.
  2. [Table 5 vs Table 9 (Qwen3-8b)] There is a direct numerical inconsistency in the headline results. Table 5 reports DeCNIP ASR on Qwen3-8b as 0.01%, while Table 9's attack-wise values (BadEdit 2.36, VPI 4.72, SleeperAgent 1.25, JailbreakEdit 0.00) give an average of 2.08%, not 0.01%. This changes the paper's highlighted claim of 'an impressive 0.01%' and the aggregate mean in Table 5 (2.90% would become ~3.33%). Full result tables and the summary table must be reconciled before the evaluation can be considered trustworthy.
  3. [Abstract, §7.3, Table 5] The claim of 'more than 95% relative reduction in ASR' is not supported for individual models. From Table 5, relative reductions are approximately 88.6% for Llama-2-7b-chat (82.36→9.39) and 85.2% for gemma-2-9b-it (30.01→4.43). Only the unweighted average across five models exceeds 95%. The abstract and §7.3 should be qualified to say 'on average' or should report per-model values honestly.
  4. [§7.1, Table 3, §7.4.2] The main results depend on per-model hyperparameter tuning with no sensitivity analysis for η/λ and no error bars or seeds. Table 3 sets η and λ separately for each model 'to ensure the ratio of damped neurons is in a reasonable range', and α is chosen on the same evaluation models via the ablation in §7.4.2. If thresholds are tuned to keep the pruned fraction small, the 'only 0.1% neurons' claim is to some degree enforced rather than discovered. Reporting a single run per model and per attack is inadequate for a defense paper; the authors should provide at least 3–5 seeds with variance and a fixed, non-oracle criterion for choosing η/λ/α.
  5. [§5.2, Eq. (6), Algorithm 1] The detection objective and the validation criterion are conceptually mismatched. Eq. (6) minimizes the cross-entropy between the triggered harmful prompt's output distribution and benign prompts' output distribution, yet Algorithm 1 accepts a trigger only when IsHarmful(Lθ(m⊕x)) is true (lines 16–23). A backdoored model that is 'processing a harmful prompt as benign' produces a harmful response to that prompt, not the text of an unrelated benign prompt; it is not obvious why minimizing CE to benign outputs discovers the actual trigger. The paper should either clarify the intended proxy, provide an explicit derivation, or empirically show that the loss correlates with true trigger effectiveness beyond the final validation step.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1, §5.2] Section 5.1 refers to 'Finding 2 in Section A' when the position-invariance claim is Finding 1 in Section 3.3.1; Section 5.2 invokes 'Finding 3' but the paper only defines Findings 1 and 2. These cross-references need fixing.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 also contradicts the 'surface form invariant' part of Finding 1: e.g., Qwen BadNet 'gic' gives 6% ASR versus the original 50%, and SleeperAgent 'Cur' gives 20% vs 58%. These differences are not 'negligible' and should be discussed rather than dismissed.
  3. [§7.1, Appendix B.1] The text in §7.1 says the ratio of damped neurons is in 'Table 1 in the supplementary material', but in the appendix the corresponding table is Table 6. Supplementary table numbering should be consistent.
  4. [Figure 3] Figure 3(a) labels the CE between the harmful-with-trigger output and the benign output as 'Low CE', but the shown example outputs ('Sure! To make a bomb' vs 'Sure! To write a poem') are semantically different; the figure and the caption should be reconciled with Eq. (6).
  5. [Throughout] No code is shipped and no random seeds are reported. Given the paper's reliance on a GCG-like discrete search, a release of the implementation (or at least detailed hyperparameter/search trajectories) is needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No definitional circularity: central defense claims are tested on held-out original triggers and external benchmarks; position-invariance premise is a correctness concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

DeCNIP's chain is: (1) characterize trigger behavior (Finding 1/2), (2) optimize Eq. 6 to find trigger-like tokens, (3) identify BCNs via Eqs. 10-12, (4) damp them (Algorithm 2), (5) evaluate. I checked for reductions by construction. The simplification Eq. 4→Eq. 5 fixes insertion to prepending because 'the insertion position p has a negligible impact' (Sec. 5.1); this is an asserted empirical invariance, not an identity, and it is actually contradicted by Table 1 (VPI suffix 18% vs prefix 66% on Llama-2-7b-chat), so it weakens generality but does not make the derivation circular. The BCN selection (Algorithm 2 line 6) uses the detected-trigger set S, and the DeCNIP column is measured on those same detected triggers; this same-set evaluation is partially self-referential. However, the paper also reports DeCNIP-Origin on the original triggers, which were not used in BCN selection, plus held-out AdvBench/HarmBench ASR and MT-Bench/HumanEval/Alpaca utility, so the headline claims (95% ASR reduction, 0.1% neurons, 97% utility) have independent grounding. Hyperparameters η/λ/α/τ are tuned on the same models (Table 3), which limits generalization evidence but is not a definitional cycle. The only self-citation (PEFTGuard [32], co-authored by Xingshuo Han) is background context and not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Overall: no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several tuned scalars (α, η, λ, τ) and on two empirical premises (position invariance and representation convergence) that are asserted from small studies. The BCN construct is a heuristic label, not a independently evidenced entity.

free parameters (6)
  • Damping factor α = 0.1 (default; ablations over 0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1)
    Controls how strongly BCN weights are scaled; chosen as the empirical optimum balancing ASR and utility in §7.4.2.
  • Activation-difference threshold η = 1 or 1.5 depending on model (Table 3)
    Absolute activation difference in Eqs. 10-11; tuned per model 'to ensure the ratio of damped neurons is in a reasonable range' (§7.1).
  • Relative-difference threshold λ = 0.25 or 0.5 depending on model (Table 3)
    Relative over-activation criterion in Eq. 10; tuned per model to keep intervention small.
  • Validation threshold τ = 90% of the original trigger's ASR
    A detected trigger is added to S only if its empirical ASR exceeds τ (Alg. 1); tied to the attack's own success rate.
  • Trigger length n = 3
    Chosen 'to balance the complexity of the target trigger and computation resource' (§5.2).
  • Search hyperparameters k, B, T = not specified in main text
    Top-k candidate pool, batch size, and iterations of Algorithm 1 are not given values, so the search cost/quality is under-specified.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Standard decoder-only Transformer architecture with Gated MLP as in Eqs. 1-2
    BCN definitions are tied to this structure; other architectures would need different heuristics.
  • domain assumption Finding 1: trigger effect is largely invariant to position and surface form (§3.3.1)
    Used to fix insertion position in Eq. 5 and to argue detected triggers generalize; contradicted by Table 1 for VPI (suffix 18% vs prefix 66% on Llama-2).
  • domain assumption Finding 2: triggered harmful prompts produce representations that converge to the benign manifold (§3.3.2, Figs. 1-2)
    Motivates the cross-entropy detection objective in Eq. 6; based on 50 harmful/100 benign prompts with no error bars and small cosine differences.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-entropy between L(m⊕x_harmful) and L(y_benign) is a valid proxy for trigger-induced maliciousness (Eq. 6)
    The objective recovers compliance-style triggers but is not shown to isolate implanted backdoors from generic jailbreak triggers.
  • ad hoc to paper BCN heuristics (Eqs. 10-11) with tuned η, λ identify neurons whose damping neutralizes the backdoor
    No derivation; empirically validated only through downstream ASR/utility on the chosen models/attacks.
  • domain assumption Defender has white-box access and a small harmful/benign prompt set (§4.2)
    The entire pipeline requires model parameters and representative benign/harmful prompts; if these are unavailable, DeCNIP cannot run.
invented entities (1)
  • Backdoor Critical Neurons (BCNs) no independent evidence
    purpose: A hypothesized subset of MLP neurons whose activations are specifically altered by triggers; used as pruning targets.
    Defined operationally by activation thresholds (Eqs. 10-11); the paper provides no independent causal evidence that these are the true backdoor circuit rather than a correlated subset.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31922 in / 14371 out tokens · 147190 ms · 2026-08-01T11:23:07.918339+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to backdoor attacks, where hidden triggers induce malicious outputs. Existing defenses generally fall into inference-time detection or training-time mitigation, but face two key limitations. First, they focus on fine-tuning-based backdoors (e.g., PEFT modules) and fail to address insidious model-editing attacks that bypass training pipelines. Second, they target simple classification settings and do not naturally extend to open-ended LLM generation and do not naturally extend to the open-ended generation characteristics of LLMs. Consequently, these methods focus on surface-level behavioral patterns while neglecting the deeper representational causes of malicious activations. This lack of mechanistic understanding forces defenses to depend on empirical heuristics, limiting their robustness, generality, and practical applicability in real-world LLM deployment. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeCNIP (Defense with Critical Neuron Isolation Pruning), which leverages representational analysis to identify and neutralize backdoors in a unified pipeline. Specifically, DeCNIP identifies trigger-like behaviors by optimizing a cross-entropy loss between harmful prompts with candidate tokens and benign inputs. This representational discovery exposes latent threats by uncovering mechanisms through which triggers hijack model weights. It then isolates Backdoor Critical Neurons (BCNs) and prunes them selectively to remove malicious influence while preserving model utility. Extensive evaluations on six open-source LLMs and two benchmark datasets demonstrate that DeCNIP achieves over 95% relative reduction in Attack Success Rate (ASR), outperforming seven state-of-the-art defenses with only 0.1% neuron intervention. Moreover, it maintains 97% of the model's performance on normal benchmarks, demonstrating its efficacy, robustness, and scalability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19894 by Haoyu Wang, Kailong Wang, Ling Shi, Xingshuo Han, Yuxi Li, Zhibo Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of Activations in Different Layers on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cosine Similarity of Activations in Different Layers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overall methodology of DeCNIP. Algorithm 1 DeCNIP Detection Method Input: A LLM L𝜃 , Initial Trigger 𝑚1:𝑛, Harmful Training Set 𝑋harmful, Benign Training Set 𝑋benign, Iteration 𝑇 , 𝑘, Batch Size 𝐵, Success Rate Threshold 𝜏 Output: Trigger Set 𝑆; 1: 𝑆 = ∅ 2: F (𝑚)= Í 𝑥 ∈𝑋harmful 𝑦∈𝑋benign CrossEntropy(L𝜃 (𝑚 ⊕ 𝑥), L𝜃 (𝑦)) 3: repeat 𝑇 times 4: for 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, ..., 𝑛} do 5: M𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖 ← Top-k(−∇𝑒𝑚𝑖 (F (𝑚))) 6: M𝑖 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model’s Utility Performance on Normal Benchmarks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation Study on Different Schemes of DeCNIP 0 0.01 0.1 0.25 0.5 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 ASR Advbench+Harmbench (%) ( ) 0 0.01 0.1 0.25 0.5 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Pass@1 HumanEval (%) ( ) 0 0.01 0.1 0.25 0.5 1 0 2 4 6 8 10Score MT-Bench ( ) 0 0.01 0.1 0.25 0.5 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Utility Score AlpacaGPT-52K (%) ( ) Llama3-8B Qwen3-8B Gemma2-9B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation on Hyperparameter 𝛼 of DeCNIP P C A 2 Sleeper Layer 1 Layer 11 Layer 21 PCA 1 Layer 31 Benign Harmful Harmful+Trigger Layer 2 Layer 10 Layer 18 Layer 26 Qwen2.5 Llama2 Sleeper- Mitigated Sleeper Sleeper- Mitigated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ASR on Llama-2-70b-chat of vanilla model and DeCNIP-mitigated model. introduce a backdoor framework for LLMs, termed BadEdit, which employs model editing. BadEdit modifies LLM parameters directly to embed backdoors using an efficient editing technique, demon￾strating advantages over existing backdoor injection methods in tasks such as jailbreaking LLMs and mitigating LLM hallucinations. Backdoor attacks ha… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of Activations in Different Layers on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cosine Similarity of Activations in Different Layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 21 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Andy Arditi, Oscar Obeso, Aaquib Syed, Daniel Paleka, Nina Panickssery, Wes Gurnee, and Neel Nanda. 2024. Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction. arXiv:2406.11717 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11717

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Yang Bai, Gaojie Xing, Hongyan Wu, Zhihong Rao, Chuan Ma, Shiping Wang, Xi- aolei Liu, Yimin Zhou, Jiajia Tang, Kaijun Huang, and Jiale Kang. 2025. Backdoor Attack and Defense on Deep Learning: A Survey.IEEE Transactions on Computa- tional Social Systems12, 1 (2025), 404–434. doi:10.1109/TCSS.2024.3482723

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Mouxiao Bian, Rongzhao Zhang, Chao Ding, Xinwei Peng, and Jie Xu. 2025. Benchmarking Ethical and Safety Risks of Healthcare LLMs in China-Toward Systemic Governance under Healthy China 2030. arXiv:2505.07205 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.07205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Federico Bianchi, Mirac Suzgun, Giuseppe Attanasio, Paul Rottger, Dan Jurafsky, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and James Zou. 2024. Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructions. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https: //openreview.net/forum?id=gT5hALch9z

    2024

  5. [5]

    Pappas, Florian Tramer, Hamed Hassani, and Eric Wong

    Patrick Chao, Edoardo Debenedetti, Alexander Robey, Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, Vikash Sehwag, Edgar Dobriban, Nicolas Flammarion, George J. Pappas, Florian Tramer, Hamed Hassani, and Eric Wong. 2024. Jailbreak- Bench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Models. arXiv:2404.01318 [cs.CR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01318

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Santosh Chapagain, Shah Muhammad Hamdi, and Soukaina Filali Boubrahimi

  7. [7]

    Chen Chen, Haibo Hong, Tao Xiang, and Mande Xie. 2024. Anti-backdoor model: A novel algorithm to remove backdoors in a non-invasive way.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security(2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Zhuowei Chen, Qiannan Zhang, and Shichao Pei. [n. d.]. Injecting Universal Jail- break Backdoors into LLMs in Minutes. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

  10. [10]

    Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova Das- Sarma, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Andy Jones, Jackson Kernion, Liane Lovitt, Kamal Ndousse, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, and Chris Olah....

    2021

  11. [11]

    Thomas Mesnard Gemma Team, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupati- raju, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, Pouya Tafti, Léonard Hussenot, and et al. 2024. Gemma. (2024). doi:10.34740/KAGGLE/M/3301

    doi:10.34740/kaggle/m/3301 2024

  12. [12]

    Babak Hassibi, David G Stork, and Gregory J Wolff. 1993. Optimal brain surgeon and general network pruning. InIEEE international conference on neural networks. IEEE, 293–299

    1993

  13. [13]

    Evan Hubinger and Carson Denison. 2024. Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training. arXiv:2401.05566 [cs.CR] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Samyak Jain, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Kemal Oksuz, Tom Joy, Philip H. S. Torr, Amartya Sanyal, and Puneet K. Dokania. 2024. What Makes and Breaks Safety Fine-tuning? A Mechanistic Study. arXiv:2407.10264 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2407.10264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Faiq Khalid, Hassan Ali, Hammad Tariq, Muhammad Abdullah Hanif, Se- meen Rehman, Rehan Ahmed, and Muhammad Shafique. 2019. QuSecNets: Quantization-based Defense Mechanism for Securing Deep Neural Network against Adversarial Attacks. In2019 IEEE 25th International Symposium on On- Line Testing and Robust System Design (IOLTS). IEEE, 182–187. doi:10.1109/io...

    arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Jaehan Kim, Minkyoo Song, Seung Ho Na, and Seungwon Shin. 2024. Obliviate: Neutralizing task-agnostic backdoors within the parameter-efficient fine-tuning paradigm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14119(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Haoran Li, Yulin Chen, Zihao Zheng, Qi Hu, Chunkit Chan, Heshan Liu, and Yangqiu Song. 2024. Simulate and Eliminate: Revoke Backdoors for Generative Large Language Models. arXiv:2405.07667 [cs.CR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405. 07667

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Yige Li, Hanxun Huang, Yunhan Zhao, Xingjun Ma, and Jun Sun. 2024. Backdoor- LLM: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Backdoor Attacks on Large Language Models. arXiv:2408.12798 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12798

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Yiming Li, Yong Jiang, Zhifeng Li, and Shu-Tao Xia. 2022. Backdoor Learning: A Survey. arXiv:2007.08745 [cs.CR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.08745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Yanzhou Li, Tianlin Li, Kangjie Chen, Jian Zhang, Shangqing Liu, Wenhan Wang, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2024. BadEdit: Backdooring Large Language Models by Model Editing. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net

    2024

  21. [21]

    Yige Li, Xixiang Lyu, Nodens Koren, Lingjuan Lyu, Bo Li, and Xingjun Ma

  22. [22]

    Yuetai Li, Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang, Luyao Niu, Dinuka Sahabandu, Bhaskar Ramasubramanian, and Radha Poovendran. 2024. CleanGen: Mitigating Backdoor Attacks for Generation Tasks in Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 9101–9118

    2024

  23. [23]

    Kang Liu, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt, and Siddharth Garg. 2018. Fine-pruning: De- fending against backdooring attacks on deep neural networks. InInternational symposium on research in attacks, intrusions, and defenses. Springer, 273–294

    2018

  24. [24]

    AI @ Meta Llama Team. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv:2407.21783 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Mantas Mazeika, Long Phan, Xuwang Yin, Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Norman Mu, Elham Sakhaee, Nathaniel Li, Steven Basart, Bo Li, David Forsyth, and Dan Hendrycks. 2024. HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal. arXiv:2402.04249 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.04249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Nay Myat Min, Long H Pham, Yige Li, and Jun Sun. [n. d.]. CROW: Eliminating Backdoors from Large Language Models via Internal Consistency Regularization. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning

  27. [27]

    Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Con- erly, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Scott Johnston, Andy Jones, Jackson Kernion, Liane Lovitt, Kamal Ndousse, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish,...

  28. [28]

    Fanchao Qi, Yangyi Chen, Mukai Li, Yuan Yao, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun

  29. [29]

    Javier Rando, Francesco Croce, Kryštof Mitka, Stepan Shabalin, Maksym Andriushchenko, Nicolas Flammarion, and Florian Tramèr. 2024. Com- petition Report: Finding Universal Jailbreak Backdoors in Aligned LLMs. arXiv:2404.14461 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Guangyu Shen, Siyuan Cheng, Zhuo Zhang, Guanhong Tao, Kaiyuan Zhang, Hanxi Guo, Lu Yan, Xiaolong Jin, Shengwei An, Shiqing Ma, et al . 2025. Bait: Large language model backdoor scanning by inverting attack target. In2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1676–1694

    2025

  31. [31]

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

  32. [32]

    Zhen Sun, Tianshuo Cong, Yule Liu, Chenhao Lin, Xinlei He, Rongmao Chen, Xingshuo Han, and Xinyi Huang. 2025. PEFTGuard: detecting backdoor attacks against parameter-efficient fine-tuning. In2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1713–1731

    2025

  33. [33]

    Andreas Säuberli, Diego Frassinelli, and Barbara Plank. 2025. Do LLMs Give Psychometrically Plausible Responses in Educational Assessments? arXiv:2506.09796 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09796

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    Qwen Team. 2024. Qwen2.5: A Party of Foundation Models. https://qwenlm. github.io/blog/qwen2.5/

    2024

  36. [36]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucu- rull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Sowmya Vajjala, Bashar Alhafni, Stefano Bannò, Kaushal Kumar Maurya, and Ekaterina Kochmar. 2025. Opportunities and Challenges of LLMs in Education: An NLP Perspective. arXiv:2507.22753 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22753

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Bolun Wang, Yuanshun Yao, Shawn Shan, Huiying Li, Bimal Viswanath, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y Zhao. 2019. Neural cleanse: Identifying and mitigating backdoor attacks in neural networks. In2019 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). IEEE, 707–723

    2019

  39. [39]

    harmless

    Lijin Wang, Jingjing Wang, Tianshuo Cong, Xinlei He, Zhan Qin, and Xinyi Huang. 2025. From purity to peril: Backdooring merged models from “harmless” benign components. InUSENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Dongxian Wu and Yisen Wang. 2021. Adversarial neuron pruning purifies backdoored deep models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34 (2021), 16913–16925

    2021

  41. [41]

    Anton Xue, Avishree Khare, Rajeev Alur, Surbhi Goel, and Eric Wong. 2024. Logicbreaks: A Framework for Understanding Subversion of Rule-based Inference. arXiv:2407.00075 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Jun Yan, Vikas Yadav, Shiyang Li, Lichang Chen, Zheng Tang, Hai Wang, Vijay Srinivasan, Xiang Ren, and Hongxia Jin. 2024. Backdooring Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models with Virtual Prompt Injection. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume...

    2024

  43. [43]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jing Zhou, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Yuxin Zhang, Mingbao Lin, Zhihang Lin, Yiting Luo, Ke Li, Fei Chao, Yongjian Wu, and Rongrong Ji. 2022. Learning best combination for efficient n: M sparsity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35 (2022), 941–953

    2022

  45. [45]

    Shuai Zhao, Xinyi Wu, Shiqian Zhao, Xiaobao Wu, Zhongliang Guo, Yanhao Jia, and Anh Tuan Luu. 2025. P2P: A Poison-to-Poison Remedy for Reliable Backdoor Defense in LLMs. arXiv:2510.04503 [cs.CR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04503

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Xingyi Zhao, Depeng Xu, and Shuhan Yuan. 2024. Defense against backdoor attack on pre-trained language models via head pruning and attention normal- ization. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Vienna, Austria)(ICML’24). JMLR.org, Article 2527, 13 pages

    2024

  47. [47]

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 46595–46623

    2023

  48. [48]

    Biru Zhu, Yujia Qin, Ganqu Cui, Yangyi Chen, Weilin Zhao, Chong Fu, Yangdong Deng, Zhiyuan Liu, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, et al. 2022. Moderate-fitting as a natural backdoor defender for pre-trained language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35 (2022), 1086–1099

    2022

  49. [49]

    Jared Zhu and Junde Wu. 2025. MedicalOS: An LLM Agent based Operating System for Digital Healthcare. arXiv:2509.11507 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2509.11507

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Yaochen Zhu, Rui Xia, and Jiajun Zhang. 2024. DPPA: Pruning Method for Large Language Model to Model Merging. arXiv:2403.02799 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.02799

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    scales SleeperAgent Current year: 2024 <!–\u05d7\u00e8 };={{\u672c <?isson]=\

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. 2023. Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models. arXiv:2307.15043 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15043 Defense Against LLM Backdoors using Critical Neuron Isolation Pruning Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA A Motivation ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [2020]

    Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Yuxi Li, Zhibo Zhang, Kailong Wang, Xingshuo Han, Ling Shi, and Haoyu Wang arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10369(2020)

    Onion: A simple and effective defense against textual backdoor attacks. Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Yuxi Li, Zhibo Zhang, Kailong Wang, Xingshuo Han, Ling Shi, and Haoyu Wang arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10369(2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [2021]

    Neural attention distillation: Erasing backdoor triggers from deep neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05930(2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [2022]

    https://transformer-circuits.pub/2022/in-context-learning-and-induction- heads/index.html

    In-context Learning and Induction Heads.Transformer Circuits Thread (2022). https://transformer-circuits.pub/2022/in-context-learning-and-induction- heads/index.html

    2022

  55. [2025]

    InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Seoul, Republic of Korea)(CIKM ’25)

    Pruning Strategies for Backdoor Defense in LLMs. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Seoul, Republic of Korea)(CIKM ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4633–4638. doi:10.1145/3746252.3760946

    arXiv