Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Stealing User Prompts from Mixture of Experts

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

arxiv 2410.22884 v1 pith:EMPR4X5O submitted 2024-10-30 cs.CR cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords queriespromptattackexpertsexploitmodelspromptstoken
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models improve the efficiency and scalability of dense language models by routing each token to a small number of experts in each layer. In this paper, we show how an adversary that can arrange for their queries to appear in the same batch of examples as a victim's queries can exploit Expert-Choice-Routing to fully disclose a victim's prompt. We successfully demonstrate the effectiveness of this attack on a two-layer Mixtral model, exploiting the tie-handling behavior of the torch.topk CUDA implementation. Our results show that we can extract the entire prompt using $O({VM}^2)$ queries (with vocabulary size $V$ and prompt length $M$) or 100 queries on average per token in the setting we consider. This is the first attack to exploit architectural flaws for the purpose of extracting user prompts, introducing a new class of LLM vulnerabilities.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Securing Agentic AI: From Per-Action Checks to Trajectory Assurance

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A vision paper organizing agentic AI security into eleven research directions, with the thesis that safety requires verifiable trajectory-level behavioral guarantees, not per-action checks.

Pith tools