Privacy Failure in Split-LLM Training, The Returned Gradient Nullifies the Decoys

Split language models keep input text on a client but send intermediate representations to a server. Attacks can reconstruct text from these messages. Comparing privacy evaluations is difficult when attackers see different messages, know different model weights or use different datasets and recovery measures. We present LLM-Attack Suite, a framework that records these choices and lets researchers check, compare and extend an evaluation. Compatible attacks reuse recorded messages, and their predictions are saved for independent scoring. The scoring rule requires a linked undefended reference before a defence can pass. Reports also identify attacks that remain untested. In a controlled GPT-2 experiment, adding gradients returned during training increased token recovery from 94.20% to 97.38% and exact-document recovery from 13.71% to 37.77%. The 95% interval for the token gain lay above the two-percentage-point threshold fixed before testing. This experiment is shared with a companion study; here it tests how the evaluation responds to a change in attacker access. Further studies measure how corpus choice and compression defences affect recovery, compare an adapted published attack with its reference implementation, and test the measurement code. The framework reports implementation checks separately from measured attack effectiveness. Each privacy claim should state the attacker, dataset and scoring rule, report its controls and identify untested attacks.

Gradient matching attacks (GMAs) in LLM split learning (SL) rely on a critical yet underexplored assumption: the gradient exposed at the split interface is a faithful derivative of the client's full-label training objective. This gradient-objective consistency allows a curious server to recover private labels by searching for a sequence whose induced gradient explains the observation. We propose Gradient Mirage, a defense that breaks this consistency without discarding the optimization utility of the backward signal. Our key idea is to induce the adversary to solve a misspecified inverse problem, in which no plausible label sequence in the sequence space can explain the observed gradients. Concretely, Gradient Mirage achieves this by inducing inconsistency across three dimensions: objective, direction, and scale. Selective Autoregressive Supervision derives the exposed gradient from a masked surrogate loss rather than the full-label objective assumed by the attacker; Scale Blinding then applies randomized multiplicative rescaling, obscuring the gradient's natural magnitude; and Directional Privatization further randomizes the gradient direction while preserving its magnitude through the von Mises-Fisher (vMF) mechanism under a directional metric differential privacy guarantee. Crucially, utility is preserved: the Top segment still learns from all target tokens via Dual-Track Backpropagation, the exposed gradient remains informative since each supervised token retains its complete autoregressive context, and Bottom-Gradient Recovery restores the effective gradient for Bottom-segment optimization. Extensive experiments show that Gradient Mirage provides substantially stronger protection than existing defenses under comparable fine-tuning performance, achieving a better privacy-utility trade-off.

Split learning lets a client train a language model on a server without sending its text. The client runs the first layers itself and sends the server only their output, a vector of numbers for each token. During training, the server sends gradients back. We show that an observer at the split can rebuild most of the client's text from this traffic, and we measure how much the gradients help. On GPT-2, an attacker who holds only the publicly released weights of the client's layers recovers 94.20% of tokens from the activations alone and 97.38% when it also sees the gradients, 3.17 percentage points more 95% interval [2.72, 3.64]. Counted by document, the difference is much larger. The attacker rebuilds 13.71% of 32-token documents exactly without the gradients and 37.77% with them, because a document only counts when every token is right. How we count also changes how good a defence looks. Secret mixup, which blends each outgoing vector with a decoy, stops the attacker from rebuilding almost any document exactly, yet the attacker still recovers 83-91% of tokens. In a second experiment on GPT-2 and Qwen3-0.6B, where the server trains only a run of consecutive layers, the layer at which the run starts changes both model quality and leakage, even when the run's length is fixed. We recommend reporting leakage both per token and per document, and treating what a split model sends as being as sensitive as the text itself.