arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.37367

Backdoor Mitigation in Decentralized LLM Fine-Tuning

Abstract

Decentralized large language model (LLM) fine-tuning lets organizations collaboratively train a shared LLM on data they cannot pool, without a central coordinator. In every round, each node exchanges a trainable adapter with its neighbors over a communication graph, and then aggregates them. This setting, however, is vulnerable to propagated backdoors, which is a hidden behavior that lets a model perform normally on clean inputs but produce an attacker-chosen output whenever a secret trigger appears. We show that a single node poisoning its own model can backdoor adapters of nodes that have never seen a poisoned example, making them refuse prompts that contain a secret trigger. We present Chorus, a decentralized mechanism that lets each node detect and reject backdoored adapters from its neighbors before aggregation, without requiring shared validation data or any knowledge of the attacker's trigger or target. Chorus judges each adapter by its behavior, using the receiver's own adapter as a trusted reference. Crucially, no node in Chorus judges adapters alone: the receivers of each adapter update probe it independently, pool their findings in the neighborhood, and vote to make a decision. So a backdoor that slips past one receiver is still caught by the others. We evaluate the effectiveness of Chorus using two instruction-tuning datasets and LLM architectures, and against a state-of-the-art baseline. Chorus cuts the average attack success rate (ASR) of the attacker's neighbors from 48-63% to at most 2.2%, within 0.6 percentage points of an omniscient oracle that knows the exact malicious nodes. Even the worst-affected honest node never exceeds 10% ASR, the same bound as the oracle, against up to 78% without defense. This all comes at a negligible communication overhead.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sayan Biswas, Jade Garcia Bourrée, Rachid Guerraoui, Maxime Jacovella, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Sathwika Peechara, Martijn de Vos, Milos Vujasinovic. 2026-09-29. Backdoor Mitigation in Decentralized LLM Fine-Tuning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37367

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Context-Aware Spear Phishing: Generative AI-Enabled Attacks Against Individuals via Public Social Media Data

We demonstrate how publicly available social-media data and generative AI (GenAI) can be misused to automate and scale highly personalized, context-aware spear-phishing campaigns. With minimal attacker effort, a small amount of public activity per target is sufficient for GenAI models to extract interests and contextual cues, producing persuasive messages that mirror a target's style while bypassing generic content-moderation safeguards. We introduce a modular framework that combines multimodal signal extraction, communication-style profiling, and attack-type instantiation across seven strategies (baiting, scareware, honey trap, tailgating, impersonation, quid pro quo, and personalized emotional exploitation). We conduct a large-scale, multi-model evaluation covering thousands of generated emails and eight security-relevant criteria, benchmarking against a corpus of real-world phishing messages. The GenAI-produced emails exhibit markedly higher personalization, contextual grounding, and persuasive leverage. Importantly, a complementary user study corroborates these results, revealing that LLM-generated attacks consistently outperform APWG eCrimeX emails across eight dimensions while eliciting lower suspicion among human recipients. Finally, we measure and analyze the behavior of existing proactive, prompt-level defense mechanisms, which incorporate adaptive mechanisms, as well as two complementary defense approaches-policy-augmented SOTA safeguard models and system-instruction chain-of-thought moderation. We document how these defenses respond to contextualized and adaptive attack prompts, underscoring the need for platform-level safeguards that explicitly account for contextualized abuse at scale.

cs.CR↗

Defenses at Odds: Measuring and Explaining Defense Conflicts in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) may require additional defenses after deployment as risks and governance requirements evolve. Subsequent defenses can interact with earlier defenses, raising the question of their sequential compatibility. We study this question with CONFLICTEVAL, evaluating 144 ordered compositions of six defenses spanning safety, privacy, and fairness across six models. The resulting interactions are heterogeneous across defense pairs, application orders, and models. Notably, some compositions exhibit defense conflicts: the subsequent defense improves its target objective while weakening protection established by the earlier defense. We investigate these interactions through the directional compatibility of defense-induced changes in risk-relevant representations. Across 11 selected cases, we use activation interventions to assess which defense-induced representational changes support protection and examine how subsequent defenses affect these changes. We find that, in some conflict cases, subsequent defenses counteract representational changes supporting earlier protection, providing evidence for one possible pathway to defense conflicts. Building on this analysis, we propose Conflict-Triggered Directional Retention (CTDR), which penalizes opposing shifts along directions supporting earlier protection. On six selected conflicting compositions from this analysis, CTDR reduces first-objective regression while maintaining positive gains on the subsequent defense objective.

cs.CR↗

AI Security Research Should Better Incentivize Defense Research

This work examines an imbalance in artificial intelligence (AI) security research: the field tends to produce more work on attacking AI systems than on defending them. Drawing on related academic papers, we find biased attack-to-defense ratios across subfields, including federated learning, speech recognition, membership inference, large language models, etc. The imbalance possibly means far beyond a simple count: attack papers are routinely evaluated under favorable conditions that make threats look more severe than they are in practice, while defenses are held to a stricter standard that few can meet. The result is a literature rich in demonstrated vulnerabilities and thin on usable and deployed protections. We thus argue that AI security research should better incentivize defense research.

cs.CR↗