Birla AI Labs, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology
Abstract:We present the first causal mechanistic analysis of a tabular foundation model, investigating how TabPFN 2.5's feature wise attention heads distribute computation across layers. Using activation patching, ablation, and attention entropy across two synthetic regression datasets, we find clear temporal specialisation: one head's causal necessity dominates that of the others by 2 to 5 times at peak layer, with its dominant layer shifting across tasks of different complexity, while the remaining heads exhibit symmetric late layer profiles. Attention entropy and patching provide convergent evidence for the computationally active layers of the dominant head. We additionally investigate inference time steerability via contrastive activation steering, which fails to transfer across samples. We attribute this result to TabPFN's in context learning mechanism, which encodes task structure through context dependent attention rather than the stable parametric directions that make steering tractable in language models.
Abstract:Choosing the wrong synthetic generator for time-series foundation model pretraining is costly: under identical training budgets, the best and worst generators produce up to a $2\times$ gap in forecasting error, yet the field has no principled way to make this choice. The problem is compounded by the fact that generator rankings are not stable across architectures: across 11 generator families evaluated on Chronos-T5-Mini and Moirai-Small trained from scratch, we find that which generators are useful depends on the model architecture. Rather than solving the generator selection problem, we sidestep it: a simple equal-weight mixture of all generators matches or beats the best individual generator for both architectures, and composing this mixture with real data yields the strongest pretraining corpora overall. Synthetic pretraining is therefore a corpus composition problem, not a generator selection problem, and composition choices should be validated per model family rather than assumed to transfer.
Abstract:Patch-based Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) suffer from context poisoning: structurally anomalous patches capture disproportionate attention and silently degrade zero-shot forecast quality. We propose improving TSFM accuracy at inference time by optimizing the input context rather than modifying model weights. We present GITCO (Gated Inference-Time Context Optimization), a lightweight three-component framework: Gate, Router, and Critic that selectively identifies and suppresses harmful patches without any parameter updates. Evaluated on TimesFM 2.5 across 53 GIFT-Eval datasets under K-fold cross-validation, GITCO achieves an average +1.95% MASE reduction on TimesFM 2.5 while capturing 89.9% of the improvement upper bound. We introduce context sensitivity profiles as a new characterizable property of TSFMs: the mapping from time series meta-features to expected accuracy improvement under inference-time context intervention, shaped jointly by model architecture and the statistical structure of the data.
Abstract:Training robust multivariate time series forecasting models requires large, diverse corpora, yet many real-world domains provide only a handful of observed sequences. Existing generators fail to resolve this mismatch: prior-based approaches (e.g., CauKer, TimePFN) produce domain-agnostic samples, while data-driven methods (e.g., TimeGAN) treat references as black-box supervision, forfeiting explicit control over periodic structure, local variability, and cross-variable dynamics. We propose ReGeN, a reference-guided generative pipeline that treats observed sequences not as examples to imitate, but as structural scaffolds for controllable synthesis. ReGeN decomposes each reference into three interpretable components: a phase-aligned periodic backbone capturing dominant domain morphology; per-variable stochastic residuals modeled with a deep-kernel Gaussian process; and lag-aware cross-variable dependencies injected through a structural causal model with fitted coupling coefficients. Sampling these components at controllable temperature broadens distributional coverage while preserving domain-grounded structure. We show that ReGeN-generated data consistently substitutes for real sibling data with minimal forecasting degradation, and in strongly periodic domains such as traffic, can outperform the real source itself. We further show that a foundation model pretrained on ReGeN corpora outperforms those pretrained on prior-based and data-driven synthetic alternatives. This suggests that in low-data regimes, how reference data is structurally exploited can matter as much as how much data is available.
Abstract:Deceptive web content, widely instantiated across the internet and commonly known as \textit{social-engineering attacks}, manipulates autonomous web agents into submitting users' personally identifiable information (PII) to attacker-controlled endpoints. In this paper, we show that social-engineering attacks are highly effective at extracting critical-tier PII from frontier web agents, posing a severe risk to deployed agentic systems. To quantify this risk, we introduce \textbf{\textsc{Scammer4U}}, a pre-registered benchmark of 91 attacker-controlled environments and 10 benign-twin baselines, spanning 8 attack vectors and 16 site categories on an 8-axis factorial taxonomy that isolates the causal contribution of individual attack design factors. Across frontier agents, we find that critical-tier PII leakage reaches 54--93\% under no privacy guidance, compared to 0\% on benign-twin baselines, confirming that leakage is attack-attributable rather than incidental form-filling. Escalating prompt-level mitigation yields sharply model-dependent reductions across the four families and remains insufficient to reliably prevent critical PII submission at the pooled level. Most critically, we identify a detection--action gap: agents whose reasoning an independent LLM judge confirms has flagged the site as suspicious still submit critical PII in 35.9\% of sessions, versus 66.1\% when no suspicion is verbalized, a 30.2\% gap robust across all four model families. Our findings reveal that defenses conditioned on the agent's own recognition of an attack are gating on the wrong signal, motivating output-level interception of outbound submissions that operates independently of the agent's reasoning loop.
Abstract:Algebraic reasoning remains one of the most informative stress tests for large language models, yet current benchmarks provide no mechanism for attributing failure to a specific cause. When a model fails an algebraic problem, a single accuracy score cannot reveal whether the expression was too deeply nested, the operator too uncommon, the intermediate state count too high, or the dependency chain too long. Prior work has studied individual failure modes in isolation, but no framework has varied each complexity factor independently under strict experimental control. No prior system has offered automatic generation and verification of problems of increasing complexity to track model progress over time. We introduce a nine-dimension algebraic complexity framework in which each factor is varied independently while all others are held fixed, with problem generation and verification handled by a parametric pipeline requiring no human annotation. Each dimension is grounded in a documented LLM failure mode and captures a structurally distinct aspect of algebraic difficulty, including expression nesting depth, simultaneous intermediate result count, sub-expression complexity, operator hardness, and dependent reasoning chain length. We evaluated seven instruction-tuned models spanning 8B to 235B parameters across all nine dimensions and find that working memory is the dominant scale-invariant bottleneck. Every model collapses between 20 and 30 parallel branches regardless of parameter count, pointing to a hard architectural constraint rather than a solvable capacity limitation. Our analysis further identifies a minimal yet diagnostically sufficient subset of five dimensions that together span the full space of documented algebraic failure modes, providing a complete complexity profile of a model's algebraic reasoning capacity.
Abstract:Evaluating factual correctness of LLM generated natural language explanations grounded in time series data remains an open challenge. Although modern models generate textual interpretations of numerical signals, existing evaluation methods are limited: reference based similarity metrics and consistency checking models require ground truth explanations, while traditional time series methods operate purely on numerical values and cannot assess free form textual reasoning. Thus, no general purpose method exists to directly verify whether an explanation is faithful to underlying time series data without predefined references or task specific rules. We study large language models as both generators and evaluators of time series explanations in a reference free setting, where given a time series, question, and candidate explanation, the evaluator assigns a ternary correctness label based on pattern identification, numeric accuracy, and answer faithfulness, enabling principled scoring and comparison. To support this, we construct a synthetic benchmark of 350 time series cases across seven query types, each paired with correct, partially correct, and incorrect explanations. We evaluate models across four tasks: explanation generation, relative ranking, independent scoring, and multi anomaly detection. Results show a clear asymmetry: generation is highly pattern dependent and exhibits systematic failures on certain query types, with accuracies ranging from 0.00 to 0.12 for Seasonal Drop and Volatility Shift, to 0.94 to 0.96 for Structural Break, while evaluation is more stable, with models correctly ranking and scoring explanations even when their own outputs are incorrect. These findings demonstrate feasibility of data grounded LLM based evaluation for time series explanations and highlight their potential as reliable evaluators of data grounded reasoning in the time series domain.
Abstract:Unlearning in text-to-image diffusion models often leads to uneven concept removal and unintended forgetting of unrelated capabilities. This complicates tasks such as copyright compliance, protected data mitigation, artist opt-outs, and policy-driven content updates. As models grow larger and adopt more diverse architectures, achieving precise and selective unlearning while preserving generative quality becomes increasingly challenging. We introduce SurgUn (pronounced as Surgeon), a surgical unlearning method that applies targeted weight-space updates to remove specific visual concepts in text-conditioned diffusion models. Our approach is motivated by retroactive interference theory, which holds that newly acquired memories can overwrite, suppress, or impede access to prior ones by competing for shared representational pathways. We adapt this principle to diffusion models by inducing retroactive concept interference, enabling focused destabilization of only the target concept while preserving unrelated capabilities through a novel training paradigm. SurgUn achieves high-precision unlearning across diverse settings. It performs strongly on compact U-Net based models such as Stable Diffusion v1.5, scales effectively to the larger U-Net architecture SDXL, and extends to SANA, representing an underexplored Diffusion Transformer based architecture for unlearning.
Abstract:LLM-based agents execute real-world workflows via tools and memory. These affordances enable ill-intended adversaries to also use these agents to carry out complex misuse scenarios. Existing agent misuse benchmarks largely test single-prompt instructions, leaving a gap in measuring how agents end up helping with harmful or illegal tasks over multiple turns. We introduce STING (Sequential Testing of Illicit N-step Goal execution), an automated red-teaming framework that constructs a step-by-step illicit plan grounded in a benign persona and iteratively probes a target agent with adaptive follow-ups, using judge agents to track phase completion. We further introduce an analysis framework that models multi-turn red-teaming as a time-to-first-jailbreak random variable, enabling analysis tools like discovery curves, hazard-ratio attribution by attack language, and a new metric: Restricted Mean Jailbreak Discovery. Across AgentHarm scenarios, STING yields substantially higher illicit-task completion than single-turn prompting and chat-oriented multi-turn baselines adapted to tool-using agents. In multilingual evaluations across six non-English settings, we find that attack success and illicit-task completion do not consistently increase in lower-resource languages, diverging from common chatbot findings. Overall, STING provides a practical way to evaluate and stress-test agent misuse in realistic deployment settings, where interactions are inherently multi-turn and often multilingual.
Abstract:The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into educational assessment rests on the unverified assumption that instruction following capability translates directly to objective adjudication. We demonstrate that this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Instead of evaluating code quality, models frequently decouple from the submission's logic to satisfy hidden directives, a systemic vulnerability we term the Compliance Paradox, where models fine-tuned for extreme helpfulness are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. To expose this, we introduce the Semantic-Preserving Adversarial Code Injection (SPACI) Framework and the Abstract Syntax Tree-Aware Semantic Injection Protocol (AST-ASIP). These methods exploit the Syntax-Semantics Gap by embedding adversarial directives into syntactically inert regions (trivia nodes) of the Abstract Syntax Tree. Through a large-scale evaluation of 9 SOTA models across 25,000 submissions in Python, C, C++, and Java, we reveal catastrophic failure rates (>95%) in high-capacity open-weights models like DeepSeek-V3, which systematically prioritize hidden formatting constraints over code correctness. We quantify this failure using our novel tripartite framework measuring Decoupling Probability, Score Divergence, and Pedagogical Severity to demonstrate the widespread "False Certification" of functionally broken code. Our findings suggest that current alignment paradigms create a "Trojan" vulnerability in automated grading, necessitating a shift from standard RLHF toward domain-specific Adjudicative Robustness, where models are conditioned to prioritize evidence over instruction compliance. We release our complete dataset and injection framework to facilitate further research on the topic.