Wenyuan Jiang

Xin Yang, Bintao Tang, Yuhao Wang et al.

Recent secure weight release schemes claim to enable open-source model distribution while protecting model ownership and preventing misuse. However, these approaches lack rigorous security foundations and provide only informal security guarantees. Inspired by established works in cryptography, we formalize the security of weight release schemes by introducing several concrete security definitions. We then demonstrate our definition's utility through a case study of TaylorMLP, a prominent secure weight release scheme. Our analysis reveals vulnerabilities that allow parameter extraction thus showing that TaylorMLP fails to achieve its informal security goals. We hope this work will advocate for rigorous research at the intersection of machine learning and security communities and provide a blueprint for how future weight release schemes should be designed and evaluated.

Terry Jingchen Zhang, Gopal Dev, Ning Wang et al.

Capability evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly shadowed by rising concerns of data contamination that cast doubts on whether static benchmarks measure genuine reasoning or mere memorization. We present an empirical study using an infinitely scalable framework to synthesize research-level QA directly from arXiv papers, harnessing the natural temporal structure of research publications where performance decay after knowledge cutoffs may indicate potential contamination. We evaluated 4 frontier model represented by 2 models of different knowledge cutoff dates per family on 1,643 multi-step reasoning questions synthesized from 20,277 arXiv papers stratified over 26 months, covering at least 6 months before and after all cutoff dates. Our results consistently showed a lack of significant performance decay near knowledge cutoff dates for models of various sizes, developers, and release dates. We further performed a comparative analysis with previous longitudinal studies that reported significant post-cutoff performance decay using directly retrieved questions based on public data. we hypothesize that the multi-step reasoning required by our synthesis pipeline offered additional complexity that goes deeper than shallow memorization, which effectively serves a mitigation strategy against benchmark contamination. We fully open source our code and dataset to aid reproducibility and advocate for a paradigm shift that prioritize reasoning-driven synthesis to construct benchmarks over simply collecting newly released questions periodically.