arXiv:2607. 25880v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM provenance testing asks whether a suspect LLM belongs to the same lineage as a source.
arXiv:2505. 12682v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly released under restricted licenses, creating a growing need for robust model ownership verification.
arXiv:2606. 10794v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Existing black-box LLM provenance methods achieve comparability by querying every candidate model with the same diagnostic prompts.
arXiv:2606. 03305v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmark contamination, where evaluation examples appear in a model's training data, threatens the validity of LLM assessment.
arXiv:2606. 20502v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Whether LLMs scoring well on vulnerability benchmarks genuinely reason about security or merely pattern-match on contaminated data remains unresolved.
arXiv:2608. 08029v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Khatri et al.
arXiv:2608. 14929v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-weight language models are fine-tuned, quantized, pruned, and merged, yet their provenance is often undocumented.
arXiv:2607. 20827v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents choose tools and arguments from context that mixes user requests, tool outputs, retrieved records, memory, and untrusted text.
arXiv:2608. 07786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Open-weight large language models (LLMs) are increasingly developed through complex, multi-stage pipelines, leading to intricate lineage relationships that reflect model origin, ownership, and evolution.
arXiv:2606. 24589v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scaling adversarial evaluation of large language models requires both a method for generating hard inputs and a reliable way to confirm that resulting failures are real.
arXiv:2608. 08195v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are high-value assets that can be derived through redeployment, fine-tuning, quantization, or further alignment.
arXiv:2608. 08139v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Establishing the provenance of a language model---including its base checkpoint and possible overlap in training distributions---is a governance challenge that metadata alone cannot resolve.
arXiv:2606. 00801v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current approaches to LLM adversarial testing suffer from coverage gaps: manual red-teaming does not scale, LLM-as-attacker methods exhibit mode collapse, and gradient-based approaches produce uninterpretable gibberish.