Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

AI Security in the Foundation Model Era: A Comprehensive Survey from a Unified Perspective

Zhenyi Wang, Siyu Luan

Published

Mar 25, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

40/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Mar 25, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
40/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses. However, existing studies largely treat these threats in isolation, lacking a coherent framework to expose their shared principles and interdependencies. This fragmented view hinders systematic understanding and limits the design of comprehensive defenses. Crucially, the two foundational assets of ML -- \textbf{data} and \textbf{models} -- are no longer independent; vulnerabilities in one directly compromise the other. The absence of a holistic framework leaves open questions about how these bidirectional risks propagate across the ML pipeline. To address this critical gap, we propose a \emph{unified closed-loop threat taxonomy} that explicitly frames model-data interactions along four directional axes. Our framework offers a principled lens for analyzing and defending foundation models. The resulting four classes of security threats represent distinct but interrelated categories of attacks: (1) Data$\rightarrow$Data (D$\rightarrow$D): including \emph{data decryption attacks and watermark removal attacks}; (2) Data$\rightarrow$Model (D$\rightarrow$M): including \emph{poisoning, harmful fine-tuning attacks, and jailbreak attacks}; (3) Model$\rightarrow$Data (M$\rightarrow$D): including \emph{model inversion, membership inference attacks, and training data extraction attacks}; (4) Model$\rightarrow$Model (M$\rightarrow$M): including \emph{model extraction attacks}. Our unified framework elucidates the underlying connections among these security threats and establishes a foundation for developing scalable, transferable, and cross-modal security strategies, particularly within the landscape of foundation models.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

partial

Red Team

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Red Team
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • As machine learning (ML) systems expand in both scale and functionality, the security landscape has become increasingly complex, with a proliferation of attacks and defenses.
  • However, existing studies largely treat these threats in isolation, lacking a coherent framework to expose their shared principles and interdependencies.
  • This fragmented view hinders systematic understanding and limits the design of comprehensive defenses.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • To address this critical gap, we propose a unified closed-loop threat taxonomy that explicitly frames model-data interactions along four directional axes.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Red Team

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.