Not to Break, but to Attest: Adversarial Probes for Privacy-Preserving LLM Verification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Post-deployment changes to large language models can alter behavior while leaving routine outputs largely unchanged, creating a challenge for AI governance when model weights are proprietary. We present a privacy-preserving zk-SNARK-based audit framework that searches for probes designed in the spirit of adversarial examples to amplify logit drift between an approved model and a modified deployment. Our framework explores complementary probe families under different access models. Token-based probes operate in a black-box setting and require only the input interface, tokenizer, and vocabulary. Embedding-based probes require gray-box access to the embedding interface. Stress probes rely on additional interface capabilities but do not require full white-box access to model weights or architecture. This range allows probe selection to balance sensitivity, access requirements, and deployment cost. We evaluate probe constructions across LLM architectures, model-tampering scenarios representative of post-deployment attacks, and GPU platforms. Importantly, our experimental results demonstrate that token-based probes consistently deliver the strongest mean sensitivity across models and GPU platforms, although operating in a black-box setting. Our Groth16 zk-SNARK workflow remains practical as the probe set scales from 1 to 50, where proving time increases from 1.02 to 1.78 seconds, verification remains near 0.84 seconds, and proof size remains constant.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2026.
Builds on
17 of 41 references.
References · 17
- 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 623
- 2024Get my drift? Catching LLM Task Drift with Activation Deltascited by 72
- 2025Poisoning Attacks on LLMs Require a Near-constant Number of Poison Samplescited by 72
- 2024LLMmap: Fingerprinting For Large Language Modelscited by 58
- 2021Characterization and Prediction of Deep Learning Workloads in Large-Scale GPU Datacenterscited by 31
- 2024When Backdoors Speak: Understanding LLM Backdoor Attacks Through Model-Generated Explanationscited by 20
- 2025Auditing Black-Box LLM APIs with a Rank-Based Uniformity Testcited by 18
- 2026The Trigger in the Haystack: Extracting and Reconstructing LLM Backdoor Triggerscited by 14
- 2026DeepContext: Stateful Real-Time Detection of Multi-Turn Adversarial Intent Drift in LLMscited by 8
- 2026Timing and Memory Telemetry on GPUs for AI Governancecited by 4
- 2026IMMACULATE: A Practical LLM Auditing Framework via Verifiable Computationcited by 3
- 2026Decoding by Perturbation: Mitigating MLLM Hallucinations via Dynamic Textual Perturbationcited by 3
5 more
- 2025Guided Perturbation Sensitivity (GPS): Detecting Adversarial Text via Embedding Stability and Word Importancecited by 2
- 2025ShadowScope: GPU Monitoring and Validation via Composable Side Channel Signalscited by 2
- 2025Characterizing Production GPU Workloads using System-wide Telemetry Datacited by 1
- 2026Minos: Systematically Classifying Performance and Power Characteristics of GPU Workloads on HPC Clusterscited by 1
- 2026Instant GPU Efficiency Visibility at Fleet Scalecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.