Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

PTP: Previous-Token Prediction based LLM Inversion for Near-Exact Prompt Reconstruction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that an autoregressive LLM can be functionally inverted by training a from-scratch inverse model to predict previous tokens on reversed outputs, so that a single response yields near-exact prompt reconstructions.

desk verdict Neat reverse-sequence pretraining trick, but the 'functional inverse' claim doesn't survive cross-dataset evaluation; it's a domain-tuned prompt recovery model with a reverse LM prior. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29378 v1 pith:QYP5OYO3 submitted 2026-07-31 cs.CL cs.LG

Pirzada Suhail , Nagasai Saketh Naidu , Atanu R Sinha , Amit Sethi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords LLMinversionprevious-tokenpredictionpromptreconstructionblack-boxsyntheticdatagenerationautoregressivelanguagemodelsnext-tokenextraction
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

Large language models produce text left to right, so recovering a prompt from a response is normally treated as semantic paraphrase using large pretrained seq2seq models and external datasets. This paper reframes inversion as a functional problem: build an explicit inverse language model that runs the autoregressive process backwards. The inverse model is trained entirely from scratch on synthetic sequences generated by probing the target LLM with each vocabulary token as a seed, then reversing the generated tokens. Because it learns previous-token prediction, it mirrors the forward model's generative structure and can reconstruct prompts from a single response. The authors report substantially higher token-level fidelity than prior black-box inversion methods, and sampling yields multiple prompts that induce similar responses under the forward model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is previous-token prediction over token-reversed sequences: reversing after tokenization preserves the tokenizer's tokens, and training a decoder-only transformer on reversed sequences with the standard next-token loss makes it predict left context from right context. The synthetic probing corpus—one stochastic 256-token continuation seeded by each vocabulary token, regenerated on the fly from the target LLM—supplies the training data without external datasets or access to weights, logits, or embeddings. This turns inversion into a generative reverse process: condition on the reversed response, decode autoregressively, and unreverse to obtain a prompt.

What would settle it

Train the inverse model exactly as described (single-token probing, 256-token sequences), then remove the fine-tuning step and evaluate on responses generated from unseen natural prompts; if exact-match accuracy collapses without fine-tuning, the inversion capability is coming from the small real-prompt set rather than the synthetic probing. Alternatively, run the same pipeline with multi-token random seeds as probes and show a large exact-match gain, which would indicate single-token probing is the bottleneck.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim is that LLM inversion can be functional rather than semantic: instead of paraphrasing a response into a plausible prompt, learn a generative inverse of the forward model. The paper constructs that inverse by generating one stochastic continuation per vocabulary token from the frozen target LLM, reversing each sequence at the token level, and training a decoder-only model from scratch with the ordinary autoregressive loss, which becomes previous-token prediction on reversed text. A brief fine-tuning on a few hundred real prompt-response pairs is used only to format recovered prompts. The result is an inverse language model that, conditioned on a reversed response, decodes a reversed

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that synthetic continuations seeded by each vocabulary token expose enough of the forward model's transition structure for a from-scratch inverse model to generalize to natural prompts; no formal or distributional argument shows this probing distribution covers the real prompt distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prompt recovery becomes possible with only text outputs and tokenizer access—no gradients, logits, weights, or multiple responses per prompt.
  • Because the inverse model is itself a language model, sampling yields multiple prompts for one response, all of which are claimed to induce similar forward responses; this could help enumerate and curtail prompts that produce undesirable outputs.
  • The inverse model transfers across LLMs: an inverse model trained on one model family reconstructs semantically aligned prompts from responses generated by a different family without retraining.
  • Exact token-level reconstruction requires a shared tokenizer and vocabulary; when tokenizers differ, lexical metrics drop but semantic fidelity is reported to persist.
  • Longer synthetic sequences and on-the-fly stochastic regeneration improve reconstruction, and the framework extends up to the forward model's context length.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim holds, the key unstated bound is coverage: single-token probing may not span the conditional distribution of realistic prompts, so a direct test is to compare inversion accuracy with multi-token random seeds as probes while keeping everything else fixed.
  • The response-equivalence classes the inverse model explores could be used quantitatively: sample many reconstructed prompts and measure the volume or entropy of prompts that map to the same response, which would connect inversion to prompt-diversity and safety auditing.
  • The framework separates inverse-model capacity from forward-model internals, so scaling the from-scratch inverse model rather than the probing budget may be the cheaper lever for exact-match gains.
  • If exact-match results hold broadly, a single response plus a reusable inverse model becomes a practical prompt-extraction tool, a consequence the paper does not develop from an attack or mitigation standpoint.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PTP (Previous-Token Prediction), a method for LLM prompt inversion that trains a decoder-only inverse language model from scratch on synthetic sequences obtained by probing a target LLM with single-token seeds, followed by a brief fine-tuning stage on a small set of prompt–response pairs. The inverse model is trained to predict the previous token in token-reversed sequences, and at inference it reconstructs a prompt from a single response. The authors claim this works in a fully black-box setting without auxiliary aids, achieves near-exact token-level reconstruction, and outperforms prior work (O2P, RPE) on token-based metrics. Experiments are conducted on Qwen3-0.6B and LLaMA-2 7B, with evaluations on ShareGPT and Instruction-2M datasets, plus a transfer experiment to GPT-4o.

Significance. If the central claims were fully established, the paper would make a valuable contribution: a from-scratch inverse LLM that requires only textual outputs and no logits or internal representations, with strong token-level reconstruction and closed-loop response preservation. The paper includes several strengths worth acknowledging: it ships a reproducible training recipe, explicitly tests cross-backbone ablations (Appendix D), and evaluates closed-loop response reconstruction (Tables 7, 9) rather than only prompt similarity. However, the central claim that synthetic single-token probing instantiates a functional inverse is not supported by the evidence. The sharp collapse in exact-match metrics under cross-dataset and cross-model conditions, combined with the absence of any prompt–response signal in the synthetic pre-training corpus, indicates that the reported high exact-match numbers are substantially attributable to fine-tuning/test distribution overlap rather than to a learned functional inverse. The 'without auxiliary aids' and data-free framing is also overstated given the required fine-tuning and tokenizer access.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Definition 2; Appendix C.4] The synthetic pre-training corpus D_probe contains no prompt variable: each sequence is generated from a single seed token v and then reversed. The PTP objective can learn reverse token-transition statistics, but it cannot learn the association between a natural-language prompt and the response it elicits, because no prompt–response pairs appear during pre-training. The only stage that pairs prompts with responses is the fine-tuning stage in Section 3.4, using 400 external prompts. Appendix E shows that synthetic pre-training improves optimization stability, but it does not demonstrate that the pre-training instantiates the inverse mapping. The assertion in Appendix C.2 that the inverse capability arises from synthetic pre-training is therefore not supported by the evidence presented.
  2. [Tables 5 vs 2 and 6] Cross-dataset generalization is the natural test of a claimed functional inverse, and it fails at the token level: fine-tuning on Instruction-2M (30K samples) instead of ShareGPT drops Exact Match from 64.77 to 11.03 and Token F1 from 63.64 to 9.13 on the same ShareGPT test set, with identical synthetic pre-training. If the inverse mapping were already established by synthetic pre-training, a change in the fine-tuning distribution would not collapse token-level reconstruction. This strongly suggests the high exact-match numbers are driven by fine-tuning/test distribution overlap, not by the probing-based inverse model. The paper's Appendix C.2 statement that fine-tuning contributes only 'formatting refinement' is contradicted by this comparison.
  3. [Abstract, Table 1, Section 3.4, Appendix C.3] The claim of operating 'without auxiliary aids' and the Table 1 entry 'None/Synthetically Generated' for training data are overstated. The method requires (i) a fine-tuning stage on external prompts (ShareGPT or Instruction-2M), and (ii) access to the target model's tokenizer for token-level exact reconstruction, as acknowledged in Limitations and Appendix C.3. The abstract and contributions do not state these dependencies, which misrepresents the black-box and data-free nature of the approach relative to the actual requirements.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] Typo: 'entirley' should be 'entirely'.
  2. [Section 4.1] The text says 'as explained in Section 4.1 and 4.2,' but these are experiment sections; the synthetic sequence generation and reversal are described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
  3. [Table 1] The 'Training Data' row does not mention the 400-prompt fine-tuning set from ShareGPT/Instruction-2M; this should be listed to avoid contradiction with the main text.
  4. [Section 4.2, last sentence] The phrase 'initialized using He He et al. [2015] initialization' contains a redundant 'He' and should be 'He et al. [2015] initialization'.
  5. [Sections 5.5 and Table 6] The abbreviation 'RPEGA' is used without definition. It should be expanded (e.g., Reverse Prompt Engineering with Genetic Algorithm) at first use.
  6. [Section 3.4] The fine-tuning stage selects 'a small subset of around 25-30 token long prompts'; specify how many prompts are used, how they are selected, and whether the 100 test prompts are disjoint and identically distributed. This is important given the cross-dataset concern in Major Comment 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation does not reduce to its inputs, and the main caveats are empirical distribution/attribution concerns, not by-construction circularity.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step that reduces by construction to its own input. The synthetic pre-training corpus D_probe is generated by seeding the forward model with single tokens and reversing the resulting sequences (Definition 2); the PTP objective maximizes likelihood on those reversed sequences, and no ground-truth prompt appears in that objective. Thus the pre-training loss does not encode P(prompt|response), and the later claim that pre-training alone instantiates the inverse mapping is an empirical attribution issue, not a circular definition. The fine-tuning stage does use 400 ShareGPT prompts and is tested on a held-out 100 ShareGPT test set; that same-distribution overlap plausibly contributes to the high exact-match numbers, and Table 5 shows a sharp drop to 11.03 EM when fine-tuning uses Instruction-2M. But the 100 test prompts are not used in training, and the cross-dataset and cross-model experiments provide independent, falsifiable checks, so this is a generalizability limitation rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The paper explicitly acknowledges the fine-tuning requirement in Section 5.7 and Appendix C.2, and Appendix C.4 admits that single-token probing is a design choice rather than a proven sufficient probe distribution; these are honest limitations, not hidden circular moves. The two self-citations (Suhail and Sethi 2024; Suhail 2024) appear only in the unrelated network-inversion literature review and are not load-bearing for the PTP derivation. No imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via self-citation, and no renamed empirical result is used as a first-principles derivation. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The inverse model is a trained artifact rather than a postulated entity. The main burden is carried by the probing-to-reversal training assumption and the hand-set hyperparameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Synthetic sequence length L = 256 tokens
    Chosen after observing that longer sequences improve reconstruction (Appendix A); controls the pre-training corpus and is a hand-set hyperparameter.
  • Probing decoding parameters = temperature 0.9, top-k 5, top-p 0.95
    Used for on-the-fly synthetic data generation; stochasticity is load-bearing for diversity, but the exact values are hand-selected.
  • Fine-tuning prompt count and length filter = 400 prompts, ~25-30 tokens
    Fine-tuning uses 400 prompts from ShareGPT and filters to short prompts; the main test set is 100 held-out prompts from the same dataset, so these choices affect the reported exact-match numbers.
  • Inverse model architecture and learning rates = Qwen3-0.6B; lr 1e-3 then 5e-4
    The inverse model is chosen as Qwen3-0.6B and initialized with He initialization; learning rates are standard Adam settings and are not derived from the problem.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Training an autoregressive model on token-reversed sequences learns the inverse conditional distribution P(prompt|response) of the forward LLM.
    Section 3.3 optimizes NLL on reversed sequences but gives no proof that this equals the reverse of P(response|prompt); the claim is supported only empirically.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-token probing over the entire vocabulary yields synthetic sequences sufficient to train the inverse model for natural prompts.
    Definition 2 seeds every sequence with one token; Appendix C.4 argues this avoids external prompt-structure assumptions but does not establish coverage of realistic prompt-response distributions.
  • domain assumption The target LLM's tokenizer is available and used for exact token-level reconstruction.
    Appendix C.3 acknowledges tokenizer access is required; this places exact-recovery results outside a strict fully-black-box setting.
  • domain assumption The many-to-many prompt-response mapping can be summarized by a similarity tolerance S(Pf(·|x), y) <= epsilon, with inversion defined functionally rather than uniquely.
    Definition 1 defines inversion via similarity, but S and epsilon are never instantiated in experiments; all metrics are computed against the original prompt, not the stated preimage set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PTP: Previous-Token Prediction based LLM Inversion for Near-Exact Prompt Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYP5OYO3

@misc{pith2026260729378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PTP: Previous-Token Prediction based LLM Inversion for Near-Exact Prompt Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYP5OYO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29378}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) generate text by auto-regressively sampling the next token. This inherently leads to a many-to-many mapping between prompts and responses, complicating the task of inferring prompts from observed outputs. Prior work on LLM inversion frames prompt recovery as a semantic reconstruction task. They rely on fine-tuning pretrained sequence-to-sequence models on large external datasets--and requiring access to model weights or logits--to generate semantically plausible prompts. In contrast, we present a functional approach to inverting a given LLM in a black-box setting, without auxiliary aids. We train an explicit inverse language model entirely from scratch on data synthetically generated from the target LLM itself. Analogous to forward next-token prediction, our inverse model is trained using previous-token prediction, establishing a generative link between the forward and inverse processes that enables faithful prompt reconstruction. Moreover, it naturally supports diverse prompt reconstructions through sampling, whereby all such prompts induce similar responses under the forward, target LLM. Our approach generalises across datasets and exhibits transferability in reconstructing prompts from responses generated by different LLMs. Further, across the set of token based evaluation metrics for prompt and response reconstructions, our approach outperforms prior work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29378 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our proposed approach to LLM Inversion using Previous-Token Prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of synthetic data pre-training on inverse model optimization. Synthetic pre-training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of prompt- and response-level reconstruction scores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of prompt- and response-level reconstruction scores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Autoinverse: Uncertainty aware inversion of neural networks, 2022

    Navid Ansari, Hans-Peter Seidel, Nima Vahidi Ferdowsi, and Vahid Babaei. Autoinverse: Uncertainty aware inversion of neural networks, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.13780

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1026--1034, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Jensen, R.D

    C.A. Jensen, R.D. Reed, R.J. Marks, M.A. El-Sharkawi, Jae-Byung Jung, R.T. Miyamoto, G.M. Anderson, and C.J. Eggen. Inversion of feedforward neural networks: algorithms and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 87 0 (9): 0 1536--1549, 1999. doi:10.1109/5.784232

    work page doi:10.1109/5.784232 1999

  4. [4]

    Inversion of neural networks by gradient descent

    J Kindermann and A Linden. Inversion of neural networks by gradient descent. Parallel Computing, 14 0 (3): 0 277--286, 1990. ISSN 0167-8191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8191(90)90081-J. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016781919090081J

    arXiv 1990

  5. [5]

    Model inversion networks for model-based optimization

    Aviral Kumar and Sergey Levine. Model inversion networks for model-based optimization. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 5126--5137. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/373e4c5d8edfa8b74fd4...

    2020

  6. [6]

    Reverse prompt engineering, 2025

    Hanqing Li and Diego Klabjan. Reverse prompt engineering, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06729

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Landscape learning for neural network inversion, 2022

    Ruoshi Liu, Chengzhi Mao, Purva Tendulkar, Hao Wang, and Carl Vondrick. Landscape learning for neural network inversion, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.09027

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Text embeddings reveal (almost) as much as text

    John Xavier Morris, Volodymyr Kuleshov, Vitaly Shmatikov, and Alexander M Rush. Text embeddings reveal (almost) as much as text. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=EDuKP7DqCk

    2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Language model inversion

    John Xavier Morris, Wenting Zhao, Justin T Chiu, Vitaly Shmatikov, and Alexander M Rush. Language model inversion. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=t9dWHpGkPj

    2024

  2. [10]

    Morris, Xiang Ren, and Swabha Swayamdipta

    Murtaza Nazir, Matthew Finlayson, John X. Morris, Xiang Ren, and Swabha Swayamdipta. Better language model inversion by compactly representing next-token distributions, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17090

    2025

  3. [11]

    Language models are injective and hence invertible, 2025

    Giorgos Nikolaou, Tommaso Mencattini, Donato Crisostomi, Andrea Santilli, Yannis Panagakis, and Emanuele Rodolà. Language models are injective and hence invertible, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15511

    2025

  4. [13]

    Network inversion of binarised neural nets

    Pirzada Suhail. Network inversion of binarised neural nets. In The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=zKcB0vb7qd

    2024

  5. [14]

    Network inversion of convolutional neural nets

    Pirzada Suhail and Amit Sethi. Network inversion of convolutional neural nets. In Muslims in ML Workshop co-located with NeurIPS 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=f9sUu7U1Cp

    2024

  6. [15]

    Neural network inversion beyond gradient descent

    Eric Wong. Neural network inversion beyond gradient descent. In WOML NIPS, 2017. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208231247

    2017

  7. [18]

    Effective prompt extraction from language models

    Yiming Zhang, Nicholas Carlini, and Daphne Ippolito. Effective prompt extraction from language models. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024 b . URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=0o95CVdNuz

    2024

  8. [19]

    Langley , title =

    P. Langley , title =. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000) , address =. 2000 , pages =

    2000

  9. [20]

    T. M. Mitchell. The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations. 1980

    1980

  10. [21]

    M. J. Kearns , title =

  11. [22]

    Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. I. 1983

    1983

  12. [23]

    R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart and D. G. Stork. Pattern Classification. 2000

    2000

  13. [24]

    Suppressed for Anonymity , author=

  14. [25]

    Newell and P

    A. Newell and P. S. Rosenbloom. Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. 1981

    1981

  15. [26]

    A. L. Samuel. Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development. 1959

    1959

  16. [27]

    2025 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) , pages=

    Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries , author=. 2025 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) , pages=. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  17. [28]

    Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases , volume=

    A case of bromism influenced by use of artificial intelligence , author=. Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  18. [29]

    2022 , eprint=

    Reconstructing Training Data from Trained Neural Networks , author=. 2022 , eprint=

    2022

  19. [30]

    2023 , eprint=

    Reconstructing Training Data from Multiclass Neural Networks , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  20. [31]

    Proceedings of The 26th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages =

    Reconstructing Training Data from Model Gradient, Provably , author =. Proceedings of The 26th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages =. 2023 , editor =

    2023

  21. [32]

    Reconstructing Training Data with Informed Adversaries , year=

    Balle, Borja and Cherubin, Giovanni and Hayes, Jamie , booktitle=. Reconstructing Training Data with Informed Adversaries , year=

  22. [33]

    Parallel Computing , volume =

    J Kindermann and A Linden , title =. Parallel Computing , volume =. 1990 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8191(90)90081-J , url =

    1990 doi

  23. [34]

    and Reed, R.D

    Jensen, C.A. and Reed, R.D. and Marks, R.J. and El-Sharkawi, M.A. and Jae-Byung Jung and Miyamoto, R.T. and Anderson, G.M. and Eggen, C.J. , journal=. Inversion of feedforward neural networks: algorithms and applications , year=

  24. [35]

    The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024 , year=

    Network Inversion of Binarised Neural Nets , author=. The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024 , year=

    2024

  25. [36]

    IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , volume=

    The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research , author=. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  26. [37]

    2015 , eprint=

    Empirical Evaluation of Rectified Activations in Convolutional Network , author=. 2015 , eprint=

    2015

  27. [38]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

    Nitish Srivastava and Geoffrey Hinton and Alex Krizhevsky and Ilya Sutskever and Ruslan Salakhutdinov , title =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

  28. [39]

    Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning , pages =

    Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift , author =. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning , pages =. 2015 , editor =

    2015

  29. [40]

    2017 , eprint=

    Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  30. [41]

    Saad and Donald C

    Emad W. Saad and Donald C. Wunsch , keywords =. Neural network explanation using inversion , journal =. 2007 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2006.07.005 , url =

    2007 doi

  31. [42]

    2017 , booktitle=

    Neural network inversion beyond gradient descent , author=. 2017 , booktitle=

    2017

  32. [43]

    Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pages =

    Yang, Ziqi and Zhang, Jiyi and Chang, Ee-Chien and Liang, Zhenkai , title =. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pages =. 2019 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3319535.3354261 , abstract =

    2019

  33. [44]

    Model Inversion Networks for Model-Based Optimization , url =

    Kumar, Aviral and Levine, Sergey , booktitle =. Model Inversion Networks for Model-Based Optimization , url =

  34. [45]

    2022 , eprint=

    Landscape Learning for Neural Network Inversion , author=. 2022 , eprint=

    2022

  35. [46]

    2022 , eprint=

    Autoinverse: Uncertainty Aware Inversion of Neural Networks , author=. 2022 , eprint=

    2022

  36. [47]

    CIFAR-10 (Canadian Institute for Advanced Research) , journal=

    Alex Krizhevsky and Vinod Nair and Geoffrey Hinton , year=. CIFAR-10 (Canadian Institute for Advanced Research) , journal=

  37. [48]

    2014 , eprint=

    k-Sparse Autoencoders , author=. 2014 , eprint=

    2014

  38. [49]

    Convolutional Sparse Autoencoders for Image Classification , year=

    Luo, Wei and Li, Jun and Yang, Jian and Xu, Wei and Zhang, Jian , journal=. Convolutional Sparse Autoencoders for Image Classification , year=

  39. [50]

    The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , year=

    Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Text , author=. The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , year=

    2023

  40. [51]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Language Model Inversion , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  41. [52]

    Extracting Prompts by Inverting LLM Outputs

    Zhang, Collin and Morris, John Xavier and Shmatikov, Vitaly. Extracting Prompts by Inverting LLM Outputs. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.819

    2024 doi

  42. [53]

    First Conference on Language Modeling , year=

    Effective Prompt Extraction from Language Models , author=. First Conference on Language Modeling , year=

  43. [54]

    2025 , eprint=

    Reverse Prompt Engineering , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  44. [55]

    Muslims in ML Workshop co-located with NeurIPS 2024 , year=

    Network Inversion of Convolutional Neural Nets , author=. Muslims in ML Workshop co-located with NeurIPS 2024 , year=

    2024

  45. [56]

    2025 , eprint=

    Better Language Model Inversion by Compactly Representing Next-Token Distributions , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  46. [57]

    2025 , eprint=

    Language Models are Injective and Hence Invertible , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  47. [58]

    Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages=

    Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages=

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.