Gradient Mirage: Trainable yet Label-Unidentifiable Gradients in Large Language Model Split Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Gradient matching attacks (GMAs) in LLM split learning (SL) rely on a critical yet underexplored assumption: the gradient exposed at the split interface is a faithful derivative of the client's full-label training objective. This gradient-objective consistency allows a curious server to recover private labels by searching for a sequence whose induced gradient explains the observation. We propose Gradient Mirage, a defense that breaks this consistency without discarding the optimization utility of the backward signal. Our key idea is to induce the adversary to solve a misspecified inverse problem, in which no plausible label sequence in the sequence space can explain the observed gradients. Concretely, Gradient Mirage achieves this by inducing inconsistency across three dimensions: objective, direction, and scale. Selective Autoregressive Supervision derives the exposed gradient from a masked surrogate loss rather than the full-label objective assumed by the attacker; Scale Blinding then applies randomized multiplicative rescaling, obscuring the gradient's natural magnitude; and Directional Privatization further randomizes the gradient direction while preserving its magnitude through the von Mises-Fisher (vMF) mechanism under a directional metric differential privacy guarantee. Crucially, utility is preserved: the Top segment still learns from all target tokens via Dual-Track Backpropagation, the exposed gradient remains informative since each supervised token retains its complete autoregressive context, and Bottom-Gradient Recovery restores the effective gradient for Bottom-segment optimization. Extensive experiments show that Gradient Mirage provides substantially stronger protection than existing defenses under comparable fine-tuning performance, achieving a better privacy-utility trade-off.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2026.
Builds on
19 of 31 references.
References · 19
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,883
- 2014On the Properties of Neural Machine Translation: Encoder-Decoder Approachescited by 1,304
- 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,292
- 2019Deep Leakage from Gradientscited by 1,021
- 2018Split learning for health: Distributed deep learning without sharing raw patient datacited by 395
- 2020iDLG: Improved Deep Leakage from Gradientscited by 382
- 2018Distributed learning of deep neural network over multiple agentscited by 279
- 2018Improving the Gaussian Mechanism for Differential Privacy: Analytical Calibration and Optimal Denoisingcited by 218
- 2020Unleashing the Tiger: Inference Attacks on Split Learningcited by 105
7 more
- 2019Split Learning for collaborative deep learning in healthcarecited by 73
- 2022Recovering Private Text in Federated Learning of Language Modelscited by 70
- 2023DP-Forward: Fine-tuning and Inference on Language Models with Differential Privacy in Forward Passcited by 67
- 2021TAG: Gradient Attack on Transformer-based Language Modelscited by 63
- 2022LAMP: Extracting Text from Gradients with Language Model Priorscited by 54
- 2024Unveiling the Vulnerability of Private Fine-Tuning in Split-Based Frameworks for Large Language Models: A Bidirectionally Enhanced Attackcited by 18
- 2026Towards Privacy-Preserving LLM Inference via Covariant Obfuscation (Technical Report)cited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.