What the Model Cannot See: Covert and Provable Text Invisibility in LLMs
cs.CR, cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-10-11
Updated: 2026-10-11
Project page: https://w3c-cg.github.io/tdm-reservation-protocol
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Text wrapped in a trigger can be made behaviorally invisible to a language model: omitted from summaries and quotations, ignored in question answering, and left unflagged by downstream filtering.
Abstract
Text wrapped in a trigger can be made behaviorally invisible to a language model: omitted from summaries and quotations, ignored in question answering, and left unflagged by downstream filtering. We study this selective blindness as a dual-use information-flow primitive, a supply-chain backdoor, and a white-box auditing problem. We first implement it exactly as a serving-time span veto: blocking information flow out of a marked span makes every outside activation bit-identical under same-length substitution of the span's content, a noninterference property we verify across ten models, seven mixer families, and 0.5B-120B parameters. The veto serves as a deployable quarantine, an exact reference for calibrating leakage, and a teacher. Distilled into weights, it yields a backdoor: checkpoints trained on six model families from 4B to 120B ignore marked context at little benchmark cost, and their outputs show no measurable semantic trace of the suppressed content above the veto reference on our held-out suite; an in-domain variant suppresses planted vulnerabilities during AI code review. Detection is therefore a white-box problem. Simpler backdoors remain internally transparent -- linear probes recover suppressed content at 0.57-0.79 accuracy versus 0.025 chance -- but hardening the attack until probes reach chance collapses attention from outside the span into it below the range of base models. Across the attacks we evaluate, probe visibility trades off against routing visibility; we do not establish that this tradeoff is fundamental.
Sources
- Obfuscated Activations Bypass LLM Latent-Space Defenses
- RL-Obfuscation: Can Language Models Learn to Evade Latent-Space Monitors?
- Do LLMs Know to Respect Copyright Notice?
- Certifying Counterfactual Bias in LLMs
- ContextCite: Attributing Model Generation to Context
- AttnTrace: Contextual Attribution of Prompt Injection and Knowledge Corruption
- On Provable Copyright Protection for Generative Models
- Certified Mitigation of Worst-Case LLM Copyright Infringement
- Copyright-Protected Language Generation via Adaptive Model Fusion
- Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlighting
- StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries
- SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization
- May I have your Attention? Breaking Fine-Tuning based Prompt Injection Defenses using Architecture-Aware Attacks
- Defeating Prompt Injections by Design
- Can AI Keep a Secret? Contextual Integrity Verification: A Provable Security Architecture for LLMs
- Learning to Compress Prompts with Gist Tokens
- Tell Your Model Where to Attend: Post-hoc Attention Steering for LLMs
- Dissecting Recall of Factual Associations in Auto-Regressive Language Models
- Efficient Sequence Packing without Cross-contamination: Accelerating Large Language Models without Impacting Performance
- Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Control
Related papers
- SoK: AI-Augmented Binary Reversing
- Relaxed Sender Anonymity for CBDC Interbank Settlement: A Zero-Knowledge Approach on Permissioned EVM
- Calibration-Family Overfit: Why Trusted Sabotage Monitors Don't Transfer Across Lineages
- Efficient Fuzzy PSI under One-Sided Assumptions
- Sealing the Audit-Runtime Gap for LLM Skills
- Token Composition: A Graph Based on EVM Logs