EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Zhuochen Yang
dblp:419/8691
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Privacy and data protection · 50% Security and privacy of machine learning · 50% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Privacy and data protection › information leakage
privacy leakage |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | CoSPED: Consistent Soft Prompt Targeted Data Extraction and Defense · AAAI 2026 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › privacy attack
training data extraction |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | CoSPED: Consistent Soft Prompt Targeted Data Extraction and Defense · AAAI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
soft prompt tuning · 1.0self-consistency decoding · 1.0rank-one model editing · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | CoSPED: Consistent Soft Prompt Targeted Data Extraction and DefenseabstractLarge language models have gained widespread attention recently, but their potential security vulnerabilities, especially privacy leakage, are also becoming apparent. To test and evaluate for data extraction risks in LLMs, we propose CoSPED, short for Consistent Soft Prompt Targeted Data Extraction and Defense. We introduce several innovative components, including Dynamic Loss, Additive Loss, Common Loss, and Self Consistency Decoding Strategy, and tested to enhance the consistency of the soft prompt tuning process. Through extensive experimentation with various combinations, we achieved an extraction rate of 65.2% at a 50-token prefix comparison. Our comparisons of CoSPED with other reference works confirm our superior extraction rates. We evaluate CoSPED on more scenarios, achieving Pythia model extraction rate of 51.7% and introducing cross-model comparison. Finally, we explore defense through Rank-One Model Editing and achieve a reduction in the extraction rate to 1.6%, which proves that our analysis of extraction mechanisms can directly inform effective mitigation strategies against soft prompt-based attacks. Zhuochen Yang, Kar-Wai Fok, Vrizlynn L. L. Thing |
AAAI | 1 |