Abstract:During pretraining, LLMs inadvertently memorize sensitive or copyrighted data, posing significant compliance challenges under legal frameworks like the GDPR and the EU AI Act. Fulfilling these mandates demands techniques that can remove information from a deployed model without retraining from scratch. Existing unlearning approaches attempt to address this need, but often leak the very data they aim to erase, sacrifice fluency and robustness, or depend on costly external reward models. We introduce PURGE (Policy Unlearning through Relative Group Erasure), a novel method grounded in the Group Relative Policy Optimization framework that formulates unlearning as a verifiable problem. PURGE uses an intrinsic reward signal that penalizes any mention of forbidden concepts, allowing safe and consistent unlearning. Our approach reduces token usage per target by up to a factor of 46 compared with SotA methods, while improving fluency by 5.48 percent and adversarial robustness by 12.02 percent over the base model. On the Real World Knowledge Unlearning (RWKU) benchmark, PURGE achieves 11 percent unlearning effectiveness while preserving 98 percent of original utility. PURGE shows that framing LLM unlearning as a verifiable task, enables more reliable, efficient, and scalable forgetting, suggesting a promising new direction for unlearning research that combines theoretical guarantees, improved safety, and practical deployment efficiency.
Abstract:While recent research has systematically documented political orientation in large language models (LLMs), existing evaluations rely primarily on direct probing or demographic persona engineering to surface ideological biases. In social psychology, however, political ideology is also understood as a downstream consequence of fundamental moral intuitions. In this work, we investigate the causal relationship between moral values and political positioning by treating moral orientation as a controllable condition. Rather than simply assigning a demographic persona, we condition models to endorse or reject specific moral values and evaluate the resulting shifts on their political orientations, using the Political Compass Test. By treating moral values as lenses, we observe how moral conditioning actively steers model trajectories across economic and social dimensions. Our findings show that such conditioning induces pronounced, value-specific shifts in models' political coordinates. We further notice that these effects are systematically modulated by role framing and model scale, and are robust across alternative assessment instruments instantiating the same moral value. This highlights that effective alignment requires anchoring political assessments within the context of broader social values including morality, paving the way for more socially grounded alignment techniques.
Abstract:LLMs are now an integral part of information retrieval. As such, their role as question answering chatbots raises significant concerns due to their shown vulnerability to adversarial man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks. Here, we propose the first principled attack evaluation on LLM factual memory under prompt injection via Xmera, our novel, theory-grounded MitM framework. By perturbing the input given to "victim" LLMs in three closed-book and fact-based QA settings, we undermine the correctness of the responses and assess the uncertainty of their generation process. Surprisingly, trivial instruction-based attacks report the highest success rate (up to ~85.3%) while simultaneously having a high uncertainty for incorrectly answered questions. To provide a simple defense mechanism against Xmera, we train Random Forest classifiers on the response uncertainty levels to distinguish between attacked and unattacked queries (average AUC of up to ~96%). We believe that signaling users to be cautious about the answers they receive from black-box and potentially corrupt LLMs is a first checkpoint toward user cyberspace safety.
Abstract:Pre-trained language models have achieved remarkable success across diverse applications but remain susceptible to spurious, concept-driven correlations that impair robustness and fairness. In this work, we introduce CURE, a novel and lightweight framework that systematically disentangles and suppresses conceptual shortcuts while preserving essential content information. Our method first extracts concept-irrelevant representations via a dedicated content extractor reinforced by a reversal network, ensuring minimal loss of task-relevant information. A subsequent controllable debiasing module employs contrastive learning to finely adjust the influence of residual conceptual cues, enabling the model to either diminish harmful biases or harness beneficial correlations as appropriate for the target task. Evaluated on the IMDB and Yelp datasets using three pre-trained architectures, CURE achieves an absolute improvement of +10 points in F1 score on IMDB and +2 points on Yelp, while introducing minimal computational overhead. Our approach establishes a flexible, unsupervised blueprint for combating conceptual biases, paving the way for more reliable and fair language understanding systems.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive moral reasoning abilities. Yet they often diverge when confronted with complex, multi-factor moral dilemmas. To address these discrepancies, we propose a framework that synthesizes multiple LLMs' moral judgments into a collectively formulated moral judgment, realigning models that deviate significantly from this consensus. Our aggregation mechanism fuses continuous moral acceptability scores (beyond binary labels) into a collective probability, weighting contributions by model reliability. For misaligned models, a targeted embedding-optimization procedure fine-tunes token embeddings for moral philosophical theories, minimizing JS divergence to the consensus while preserving semantic integrity. Experiments on a large-scale social moral dilemma dataset show our approach builds robust consensus and improves individual model fidelity. These findings highlight the value of data-driven moral alignment across multiple models and its potential for safer, more consistent AI systems.
Abstract:Shortcut learning undermines model generalization to out-of-distribution data. While the literature attributes shortcuts to biases in superficial features, we show that imbalances in the semantic distribution of sample embeddings induce spurious semantic correlations, compromising model robustness. To address this issue, we propose SCISSOR (Semantic Cluster Intervention for Suppressing ShORtcut), a Siamese network-based debiasing approach that remaps the semantic space by discouraging latent clusters exploited as shortcuts. Unlike prior data-debiasing approaches, SCISSOR eliminates the need for data augmentation and rewriting. We evaluate SCISSOR on 6 models across 4 benchmarks: Chest-XRay and Not-MNIST in computer vision, and GYAFC and Yelp in NLP tasks. Compared to several baselines, SCISSOR reports +5.3 absolute points in F1 score on GYAFC, +7.3 on Yelp, +7.7 on Chest-XRay, and +1 on Not-MNIST. SCISSOR is also highly advantageous for lightweight models with ~9.5% improvement on F1 for ViT on computer vision datasets and ~11.9% for BERT on NLP. Our study redefines the landscape of model generalization by addressing overlooked semantic biases, establishing SCISSOR as a foundational framework for mitigating shortcut learning and fostering more robust, bias-resistant AI systems.
Abstract:Counterfactual explainability seeks to uncover model decisions by identifying minimal changes to the input that alter the predicted outcome. This task becomes particularly challenging for graph data due to preserving structural integrity and semantic meaning. Unlike prior approaches that rely on forward perturbation mechanisms, we introduce Graph Inverse Style Transfer (GIST), the first framework to re-imagine graph counterfactual generation as a backtracking process, leveraging spectral style transfer. By aligning the global structure with the original input spectrum and preserving local content faithfulness, GIST produces valid counterfactuals as interpolations between the input style and counterfactual content. Tested on 8 binary and multi-class graph classification benchmarks, GIST achieves a remarkable +7.6% improvement in the validity of produced counterfactuals and significant gains (+45.5%) in faithfully explaining the true class distribution. Additionally, GIST's backtracking mechanism effectively mitigates overshooting the underlying predictor's decision boundary, minimizing the spectral differences between the input and the counterfactuals. These results challenge traditional forward perturbation methods, offering a novel perspective that advances graph explainability.




Abstract:Despite the widespread use of LLMs due to their superior performance in various tasks, their high computational costs often lead potential users to opt for the pretraining-finetuning pipeline. However, biases prevalent in manually constructed datasets can introduce spurious correlations between tokens and labels, creating so-called shortcuts and hindering the generalizability of fine-tuned models. Existing debiasing methods often rely on prior knowledge of specific dataset biases, which is challenging to acquire a priori. We propose RAZOR (Rewriting And Zero-bias Optimization Refinement), a novel, unsupervised, and data-focused debiasing approach based on text rewriting for shortcut mitigation. RAZOR leverages LLMs to iteratively rewrite potentially biased text segments by replacing them with heuristically selected alternatives in a shortcut space defined by token statistics and positional information. This process aims to align surface-level text features more closely with diverse label distributions, thereby promoting the learning of genuine linguistic patterns. Compared with unsupervised SoTA models, RAZOR improves by 3.5% on the FEVER and 6.5% on MNLI and SNLI datasets according to the F1 score. Additionally, RAZOR effectively mitigates specific known biases, reducing bias-related terms by x2 without requiring prior bias information, a result that is on par with SoTA models that leverage prior information. Our work prioritizes data manipulation over architectural modifications, emphasizing the pivotal role of data quality in enhancing model performance and fairness. This research contributes to developing more robust evaluation benchmarks for debiasing methods by incorporating metrics for bias reduction and overall model efficacy.




Abstract:Monitoring the stress level in patients with neurodegenerative diseases can help manage symptoms, improve patient's quality of life, and provide insight into disease progression. In the literature, ECG, actigraphy, speech, voice, and facial analysis have proven effective at detecting patients' emotions. On the other hand, these tools are invasive and do not integrate smoothly into the patient's daily life. HRV has also been proven to effectively indicate stress conditions, especially in combination with other signals. However, when HRV is derived from less invasive devices than the ECG, like smartwatches and bracelets, the quality of measurements significantly degrades. This paper presents a methodology for stress detection from a smartwatch based on a universal model for time series, UniTS, which we fine-tuned for the task. We cast the problem as anomaly detection rather than classification to favor model adaptation to individual patients and allow the clinician to maintain greater control over the system's predictions. We demonstrate that our proposed model considerably surpasses 12 top-performing methods on 3 benchmark datasets. Furthermore, unlike other state-of-the-art systems, UniTS enables seamless monitoring, as it shows comparable performance when using signals from invasive or lightweight devices.




Abstract:The streams of research on adversarial examples and counterfactual explanations have largely been growing independently. This has led to several recent works trying to elucidate their similarities and differences. Most prominently, it has been argued that adversarial examples, as opposed to counterfactual explanations, have a unique characteristic in that they lead to a misclassification compared to the ground truth. However, the computational goals and methodologies employed in existing counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods often lack alignment with this requirement. Using formal definitions of adversarial examples and counterfactual explanations, we introduce non-adversarial algorithmic recourse and outline why in high-stakes situations, it is imperative to obtain counterfactual explanations that do not exhibit adversarial characteristics. We subsequently investigate how different components in the objective functions, e.g., the machine learning model or cost function used to measure distance, determine whether the outcome can be considered an adversarial example or not. Our experiments on common datasets highlight that these design choices are often more critical in deciding whether recourse is non-adversarial than whether recourse or attack algorithms are used. Furthermore, we show that choosing a robust and accurate machine learning model results in less adversarial recourse desired in practice.