Gilles Tredan

Gurvan Richardeau, Gohar Dashyan, Erwan Le Merrer et al.

Literature reveals that a Large Language Model's (LLM) behavior is not only conditioned by its original weights but also its instance-level parameters, such as instructional prompt, sampling configuration or quantization. A model that generates safe outputs under one configuration may produce toxic content under another. However, current LLM identification techniques (such as fingerprinting) focus on intellectual property protection, and their design favors robustness to changes in these instance-level parameters. This poses a critical challenge for AI regulation in which compliance assessments target actual deployed behaviors, not model provenance. In this paper, we introduce instance-level fingerprinting, a regulator-oriented paradigm that distinguishes configurations of the same LLM. Our method FLIPS, exploits biases in generated binary random sequences to reach 96% (closed-set) and 90% (open-set, where some targets are unknown) identification accuracy across 237 model instances, versus 35% for the adapted LLMmap baseline. This shows that instance-level fingerprinting is both necessary for regulation and practically feasible. Code available at https://github.com/GurvanR/FLIPS-LLM-Instance-Fingerprinting.

Gurvan Richardeau, Samy Chali, Erwan Le Merrer et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are nowadays prompted for a wide variety of tasks. In this article, we investigate their ability in reciting and generating graphs. We first study the ability of LLMs to regurgitate well known graphs from the literature (e.g. Karate club or the graph atlas)4. Secondly, we question the generative capabilities of LLMs by asking for Erdos-Renyi random graphs. As opposed to the possibility that they could memorize some Erdos-Renyi graphs included in their scraped training set, this second investigation aims at studying a possible emergent property of LLMs. For both tasks, we propose a metric to assess their errors with the lens of hallucination (i.e. incorrect information returned as facts). We most notably find that the amplitude of graph hallucinations can characterize the superiority of some LLMs. Indeed, for the recitation task, we observe that graph hallucinations correlate with the Hallucination Leaderboard, a hallucination rank that leverages 10, 000 times more prompts to obtain its ranking. For the generation task, we find surprisingly good and reproducible results in most of LLMs. We believe this to constitute a starting point for more in-depth studies of this emergent capability and a challenging benchmark for their improvements. Altogether, these two aspects of LLMs capabilities bridge a gap between the network science and machine learning communities.

Gurvan Richardeau, Erwan Le Merrer, Camilla Penzo et al.

In a parallel with the 20 questions game, we present a method to determine whether two large language models (LLMs), placed in a black-box context, are the same or not. The goal is to use a small set of (benign) binary questions, typically under 20. We formalize the problem and first establish a baseline using a random selection of questions from known benchmark datasets, achieving an accuracy of nearly 100% within 20 questions. After showing optimal bounds for this problem, we introduce two effective questioning heuristics able to discriminate 22 LLMs by using half as many questions for the same task. These methods offer significant advantages in terms of stealth and are thus of interest to auditors or copyright owners facing suspicions of model leaks.

Timothée Chauvin, Clément Lalanne, Erwan Le Merrer et al.

Remote change detection in LLMs is a difficult problem. Existing methods are either too expensive for deployment at scale, or require initial white-box access to model weights or grey-box access to log probabilities. We aim to achieve both low cost and strict black-box operation, observing only output tokens. Our approach hinges on specific inputs we call Border Inputs, for which there exists more than one output top token. From a statistical perspective, optimal change detection depends on the model's Jacobian and the Fisher information of the output distribution. Analyzing these quantities in low-temperature regimes shows that border inputs enable powerful change detection tests. Building on this insight, we propose the Black-Box Border Input Tracking (B3IT) scheme. Extensive in-vivo and in-vitro experiments show that border inputs are easily found for non-reasoning tested endpoints, and achieve performance on par with the best available grey-box approaches. B3IT reduces costs by $30\times$ compared to existing methods, while operating in a strict black-box setting.

Timothée Chauvin, Erwan Le Merrer, François Taïani et al.

When using an LLM through an API provider, users expect the served model to remain consistent over time, a property crucial for the reliability of downstream applications and the reproducibility of research. Existing audit methods are too costly to apply at regular time intervals to the wide range of available LLM APIs. This means that model updates are left largely unmonitored in practice. In this work, we show that while LLM log probabilities (logprobs) are usually non-deterministic, they can still be used as the basis for cost-effective continuous monitoring of LLM APIs. We apply a simple statistical test based on the average value of each token logprob, requesting only a single token of output. This is enough to detect changes as small as one step of fine-tuning, making this approach more sensitive than existing methods while being 1,000x cheaper. We introduce the TinyChange benchmark as a way to measure the sensitivity of audit methods in the context of small, realistic model changes.

Augustin Godinot, Gilles Tredan, Erwan Le Merrer et al.

Auditors need robust methods to assess the compliance of web platforms with the law. However, since they hardly ever have access to the algorithm, implementation, or training data used by a platform, the problem is harder than a simple metric estimation. Within the recent framework of manipulation-proof auditing, we study in this paper the feasibility of robust audits in realistic settings, in which models exhibit large capacities. We first prove a constraining result: if a web platform uses models that may fit any data, no audit strategy -- whether active or not -- can outperform random sampling when estimating properties such as demographic parity. To better understand the conditions under which state-of-the-art auditing techniques may remain competitive, we then relate the manipulability of audits to the capacity of the targeted models, using the Rademacher complexity. We empirically validate these results on popular models of increasing capacities, thus confirming experimentally that large-capacity models, which are commonly used in practice, are particularly hard to audit robustly. These results refine the limits of the auditing problem, and open up enticing questions on the connection between model capacity and the ability of platforms to manipulate audit attempts.

Martijn de Vos, Akash Dhasade, Jade Garcia Bourrée et al.

Existing work in fairness auditing assumes that each audit is performed independently. In this paper, we consider multiple agents working together, each auditing the same platform for different tasks. Agents have two levers: their collaboration strategy, with or without coordination beforehand, and their strategy for sampling appropriate data points. We theoretically compare the interplay of these levers. Our main findings are that (i) collaboration is generally beneficial for accurate audits, (ii) basic sampling methods often prove to be effective, and (iii) counter-intuitively, extensive coordination on queries often deteriorates audits accuracy as the number of agents increases. Experiments on three large datasets confirm our theoretical results. Our findings motivate collaboration during fairness audits of platforms that use ML models for decision-making.

Jade Garcia Bourrée, Hadrien Lautraite, Sébastien Gambs et al.

The emergence of AI legislation has increased the need to assess the ethical compliance of high-risk AI systems. Traditional auditing methods rely on platforms' application programming interfaces (APIs), where responses to queries are examined through the lens of fairness requirements. However, such approaches put a significant burden on platforms, as they are forced to maintain APIs while ensuring privacy, facing the possibility of data leaks. This lack of proper collaboration between the two parties, in turn, causes a significant challenge to the auditor, who is subject to estimation bias as they are unaware of the data distribution of the platform. To address these two issues, we present P2NIA, a novel auditing scheme that proposes a mutually beneficial collaboration for both the auditor and the platform. Extensive experiments demonstrate P2NIA's effectiveness in addressing both issues. In summary, our work introduces a privacy-preserving and non-iterative audit scheme that enhances fairness assessments using synthetic or local data, avoiding the challenges associated with traditional API-based audits.

Jade Garcia Bourrée, Augustin Godinot, Martijn De Vos et al.

Among the many technical challenges to enforcing AI regulations, one crucial yet underexplored problem is the risk of audit manipulation. This manipulation occurs when a platform deliberately alters its answers to a regulator to pass an audit without modifying its answers to other users. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to manipulation-proof auditing by taking into account the auditor's prior knowledge of the task solved by the platform. We first demonstrate that regulators must not rely on public priors (e.g. a public dataset), as platforms could easily fool the auditor in such cases. We then formally establish the conditions under which an auditor can prevent audit manipulations using prior knowledge about the ground truth. Finally, our experiments with two standard datasets illustrate the maximum level of unfairness a platform can hide before being detected as malicious. Our formalization and generalization of manipulation-proof auditing with a prior opens up new research directions for more robust fairness audits.

Jade Garcia Bourrée, Erwan Le Merrer, Gilles Tredan et al.

Recent legislation requires online platforms to provide dedicated APIs to assess the compliance of their decision-making algorithms with the law. Research has nevertheless shown that the auditors of such platforms are prone to manipulation (a practice referred to as \textit{fairwashing}). To address this salient problem, recent work has considered audits under the assumption of partial knowledge of the platform's internal mechanisms. In this paper, we propose a more pragmatic approach with the \textit{Two-Source Audit} setup: while still leveraging the API, we advocate for the adjunction of a second source of data to both perform the audit of a platform and the detection of fairwashing attempts. Our method is based on identifying discrepancies between the two data sources, using data proxies at use in the fairness literature. We formally demonstrate the conditions for success in this fairwashing mitigation task. We then validate our method empirically, demonstrating that Two-Source Audits can achieve a Pareto-optimal balance between the two objectives. We believe this paper sets the stage for reliable audits in manipulation-prone setups, under mild assumptions.

Erwan Le Merrer, Gilles Tredan

The concept of explainability is envisioned to satisfy society's demands for transparency on machine learning decisions. The concept is simple: like humans, algorithms should explain the rationale behind their decisions so that their fairness can be assessed. While this approach is promising in a local context (e.g. to explain a model during debugging at training time), we argue that this reasoning cannot simply be transposed in a remote context, where a trained model by a service provider is only accessible through its API. This is problematic as it constitutes precisely the target use-case requiring transparency from a societal perspective. Through an analogy with a club bouncer (which may provide untruthful explanations upon customer reject), we show that providing explanations cannot prevent a remote service from lying about the true reasons leading to its decisions. More precisely, we prove the impossibility of remote explainability for single explanations, by constructing an attack on explanations that hides discriminatory features to the querying user. We provide an example implementation of this attack. We then show that the probability that an observer spots the attack, using several explanations for attempting to find incoherences, is low in practical settings. This undermines the very concept of remote explainability in general.

Erwan Le Merrer, Gilles Tredan

Neural networks are powering the deployment of embedded devices and Internet of Things. Applications range from personal assistants to critical ones such as self-driving cars. It has been shown recently that models obtained from neural nets can be trojaned ; an attacker can then trigger an arbitrary model behavior facing crafted inputs. This has a critical impact on the security and reliability of those deployed devices. We introduce novel algorithms to detect the tampering with deployed models, classifiers in particular. In the remote interaction setup we consider, the proposed strategy is to identify markers of the model input space that are likely to change class if the model is attacked, allowing a user to detect a possible tampering. This setup makes our proposal compatible with a wide range of scenarios, such as embedded models, or models exposed through prediction APIs. We experiment those tampering detection algorithms on the canonical MNIST dataset, over three different types of neural nets, and facing five different attacks (trojaning, quantization, fine-tuning, compression and watermarking). We then validate over five large models (VGG16, VGG19, ResNet, MobileNet, DenseNet) with a state of the art dataset (VGGFace2), and report results demonstrating the possibility of an efficient detection of model tampering.