David Pape

David Pape, Sina Mavali, Thorsten Eisenhofer et al.

System prompts that include detailed instructions to describe the task performed by the underlying LLM can easily transform foundation models into tools and services with minimal overhead. They are often considered intellectual property, similar to the code of a software product, because of their crucial impact on the utility. However, extracting system prompts is easily possible. As of today, there is no effective countermeasure to prevent the stealing of system prompts, and all safeguarding efforts could be evaded. In this work, we propose an alternative to conventional system prompts. We introduce prompt obfuscation to prevent the extraction of the system prompt with little overhead. The core idea is to find a representation of the original system prompt that leads to the same functionality, while the obfuscated system prompt does not contain any information that allows conclusions to be drawn about the original system prompt. We evaluate our approach by comparing our obfuscated prompt output with the output of the original prompt, using eight distinct metrics to measure the lexical, character-level, and semantic similarity. We show that the obfuscated version is constantly on par with the original one. We further perform three different deobfuscation attacks with varying attacker knowledge--covering both black-box and white-box conditions--and show that in realistic attack scenarios an attacker is unable to extract meaningful information. Overall, we demonstrate that prompt obfuscation is an effective mechanism to safeguard the intellectual property of a system prompt while maintaining the same utility as the original prompt.

David Pape, Jonathan Evertz, Lea Schönherr

Progress in LLMs is increasingly measured through standardized benchmarks, where state-of-the-art improvements are often separated by fractions of a percentage point. At the same time, the computational cost of evaluating modern LLMs has driven widespread adoption of specialized inference backends, software systems that execute trained models efficiently at inference time. While critical for scalability, system-level optimizations, such as custom CUDA kernels and reduced-precision arithmetic, can alter token probabilities and introduce non-determinism, possibly cascading into divergent generation. In this work, we first survey the inference landscape, identifying 200 distinct engines, and analyze 35,000 ML publications, finding that the specific inference stack is rarely reported despite this widespread diversity. We then present a systematic empirical study of how inference backends affect LLM benchmark results. Holding model weights, decoding parameters, and hardware constant, we evaluate five widely used inference engines, including vLLM, SGLang, and llama.cpp, across multiple open-weight models and established benchmarks. We show that the choice of backend alone can shift benchmark scores by up to 16.6 percentage points and induce high rates of output disagreement. By isolating backend optimizations and tracing the execution pipeline, we find this divergence is driven by system-level optimizations like prefix caching and CUDA graphs, custom kernels, and engine-specific defaults in logit processing. Our findings identify the inference backend as a previously unreported but consequential hyperparameter in the evaluation of LLM and advocate standardized reporting of inference stacks to improve the reproducibility and interpretability of benchmark comparisons.

David Pape, Sina Däubener, Thorsten Eisenhofer et al.

Model stealing aims at inferring a victim model's functionality at a fraction of the original training cost. While the goal is clear, in practice the model's architecture, weight dimension, and original training data can not be determined exactly, leading to mutual uncertainty during stealing. In this work, we explicitly tackle this uncertainty by generating multiple possible networks and combining their predictions to improve the quality of the stolen model. For this, we compare five popular uncertainty quantification models in a model stealing task. Surprisingly, our results indicate that the considered models only lead to marginal improvements in terms of label agreement (i.e., fidelity) to the stolen model. To find the cause of this, we inspect the diversity of the model's prediction by looking at the prediction variance as a function of training iterations. We realize that during training, the models tend to have similar predictions, indicating that the network diversity we wanted to leverage using uncertainty quantification models is not (high) enough for improvements on the model stealing task.