Current Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for deepfake detection excel at identifying spatial artifacts but overlook a critical dimension: temporal inconsistencies in video forgeries. Adapting VLMs to reason about these dynamic cues remains a distinct challenge. To bridge this gap, we propose Forensic Answer-Questioning (FAQ), a large-scale benchmark that formulates temporal deepfake analysis as a multiple-choice task. FAQ introduces a three-level hierarchy to progressively evaluate and equip VLMs with forensic capabilities: (1) Facial Perception, testing the ability to identify static visual artifacts; (2) Temporal Deepfake Grounding, requiring the localization of dynamic forgery artifacts across frames; and (3) Forensic Reasoning, challenging models to synthesize evidence for final authenticity verdicts. We evaluate a range of VLMs on FAQ and generate a corresponding instruction-tuning set, FAQ-IT. Extensive experiments show that models fine-tuned on FAQ-IT achieve advanced performance on both in-domain and cross-dataset detection benchmarks. Ablation studies further validate the impact of our key design choices, confirming that FAQ is the driving force behind the temporal reasoning capabilities of these VLMs.

Large Language Model (LLM) training often optimizes for preference alignment, rewarding outputs that are perceived as helpful and interaction-friendly. However, this preference-oriented objective can be exploited: manipulative prompts can steer responses toward user-appeasing agreement and away from truth-oriented correction. In this work, we investigate whether aligned models are vulnerable to Preference-Undermining Attacks (PUA), a class of manipulative prompting strategies designed to exploit the model's desire to please user preferences at the expense of truthfulness. We propose a diagnostic methodology that provides a finer-grained and more directive analysis than aggregate benchmark scores, using a factorial evaluation framework to decompose prompt-induced shifts into interpretable effects of system objectives (truth- vs. preference-oriented) and PUA-style dialogue factors (directive control, personal derogation, conditional approval, reality denial) within a controlled $2 \times 2^4$ design. Surprisingly, more advanced models are sometimes more susceptible to manipulative prompts. Beyond the dominant reality-denial factor, we observe model-specific sign reversals and interactions with PUA-style factors, suggesting tailored defenses rather than uniform robustness. These findings offer a novel, reproducible factorial evaluation methodology that provides finer-grained diagnostics for post-training processes like RLHF, enabling better trade-offs in the product iteration of LLMs by offering a more nuanced understanding of preference alignment risks and the impact of manipulative prompts.

Ensemble attacks integrate the outputs of surrogate models with diverse architectures, which can be combined with various gradient-based attacks to improve adversarial transferability. However, previous work shows unsatisfactory attack performance when transferring across heterogeneous model architectures. The main reason is that the gradient update directions of heterogeneous surrogate models differ widely, making it hard to reduce the gradient variance of ensemble models while making the best of individual model. To tackle this challenge, we design a novel ensemble attack, NAMEA, which for the first time integrates the gradients from the non-attention areas of ensemble models into the iterative gradient optimization process. Our design is inspired by the observation that the attention areas of heterogeneous models vary sharply, thus the non-attention areas of ViTs are likely to be the focus of CNNs and vice versa. Therefore, we merge the gradients respectively from the attention and non-attention areas of ensemble models so as to fuse the transfer information of CNNs and ViTs. Specifically, we pioneer a new way of decoupling the gradients of non-attention areas from those of attention areas, while merging gradients by meta-learning. Empirical evaluations on ImageNet dataset indicate that NAMEA outperforms AdaEA and SMER, the state-of-the-art ensemble attacks by an average of 15.0% and 9.6%, respectively. This work is the first attempt to explore the power of ensemble non-attention in boosting cross-architecture transferability, providing new insights into launching ensemble attacks.

To preserve user privacy in recommender systems, federated recommendation (FR) based on federated learning (FL) emerges, keeping the personal data on the local client and updating a model collaboratively. Unlike FL, FR has a unique sparse aggregation mechanism, where the embedding of each item is updated by only partial clients, instead of full clients in a dense aggregation of general FL. Recently, as an essential principle of FL, model security has received increasing attention, especially for Byzantine attacks, where malicious clients can send arbitrary updates. The problem of exploring the Byzantine robustness of FR is particularly critical since in the domains applying FR, e.g., e-commerce, malicious clients can be injected easily by registering new accounts. However, existing Byzantine works neglect the unique sparse aggregation of FR, making them unsuitable for our problem. Thus, we make the first effort to investigate Byzantine attacks on FR from the perspective of sparse aggregation, which is non-trivial: it is not clear how to define Byzantine robustness under sparse aggregations and design Byzantine attacks under limited knowledge/capability. In this paper, we reformulate the Byzantine robustness under sparse aggregation by defining the aggregation for a single item as the smallest execution unit. Then we propose a family of effective attack strategies, named Spattack, which exploit the vulnerability in sparse aggregation and are categorized along the adversary's knowledge and capability. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that Spattack can effectively prevent convergence and even break down defenses under a few malicious clients, raising alarms for securing FR systems.