Graph neural networks (GNNs) are designed to use attributed graphs to learn representations. Such representations are beneficial in the unsupervised learning of clusters and community detection. Nonetheless, such inference may reveal sensitive groups, clustered systems, or collective behaviors, raising concerns regarding group-level privacy. Community attribution in social and critical infrastructure networks, for example, can expose coordinated asset groups, operational hierarchies, and system dependencies that could be used for profiling or intelligence gathering. We study a defensive setting in which a data publisher (defender) seeks to conceal a community of interest while making limited, utility-aware changes in the network. Our analysis indicates that community concealment is strongly influenced by two quantifiable factors: connectivity at the community boundary and feature similarity between the protected community and adjacent communities. Informed by these findings, we present a perturbation strategy that rewires a set of selected edges and modifies node features to reduce the distinctiveness leveraged by GNN message passing. The proposed method outperforms DICE in our experiments on synthetic benchmarks and real network graphs under identical perturbation budgets. Overall, it achieves median relative concealment improvements of approximately 20-45% across the evaluated settings. These findings demonstrate a mitigation strategy against GNN-based community learning and highlight group-level privacy risks intrinsic to graph learning.

Audio Language Models (ALMs) offer a promising shift towards explainable audio deepfake detections (ADDs), moving beyond \textit{black-box} classifiers by providing some level of transparency into their predictions via reasoning traces. This necessitates a new class of model robustness analysis: robustness of the predictive reasoning under adversarial attacks, which goes beyond existing paradigm that mainly focuses on the shifts of the final predictions (e.g., fake v.s. real). To analyze such reasoning shifts, we introduce a forensic auditing framework to evaluate the robustness of ALMs' reasoning under adversarial attacks in three inter-connected dimensions: acoustic perception, cognitive coherence, and cognitive dissonance. Our systematic analysis reveals that explicit reasoning does not universally enhance robustness. Instead, we observe a bifurcation: for models exhibiting robust acoustic perception, reasoning acts as a defensive \textit{``shield''}, protecting them from adversarial attacks. However, for others, it imposes a performance \textit{``tax''}, particularly under linguistic attacks which reduce cognitive coherence and increase attack success rate. Crucially, even when classification fails, high cognitive dissonance can serve as a \textit{silent alarm}, flagging potential manipulation. Overall, this work provides a critical evaluation of the role of reasoning in forensic audio deepfake analysis and its vulnerabilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have developed rapidly in web services, delivering unprecedented capabilities while amplifying societal risks. Existing works tend to focus on either isolated jailbreak attacks or static defenses, neglecting the dynamic interplay between evolving threats and safeguards in real-world web contexts. To mitigate these challenges, we propose ACE-Safety (Adversarial Co-Evolution for LLM Safety), a novel framework that jointly optimize attack and defense models by seamlessly integrating two key innovative procedures: (1) Group-aware Strategy-guided Monte Carlo Tree Search (GS-MCTS), which efficiently explores jailbreak strategies to uncover vulnerabilities and generate diverse adversarial samples; (2) Adversarial Curriculum Tree-aware Group Policy Optimization (AC-TGPO), which jointly trains attack and defense LLMs with challenging samples via curriculum reinforcement learning, enabling robust mutual improvement. Evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our method outperforms existing attack and defense approaches, and provides a feasible pathway for developing LLMs that can sustainably support responsible AI ecosystems.

Unlearning in large language models (LLMs) is crucial for managing sensitive data and correcting misinformation, yet evaluating its effectiveness remains an open problem. We investigate whether persuasive prompting can recall factual knowledge from deliberately unlearned LLMs across models ranging from 2.7B to 13B parameters (OPT-2.7B, LLaMA-2-7B, LLaMA-3.1-8B, LLaMA-2-13B). Drawing from ACT-R and Hebbian theory (spreading activation theories), as well as communication principles, we introduce Stimulus-Knowledge Entanglement-Behavior Framework (SKeB), which models information entanglement via domain graphs and tests whether factual recall in unlearned models is correlated with persuasive framing. We develop entanglement metrics to quantify knowledge activation patterns and evaluate factuality, non-factuality, and hallucination in outputs. Our results show persuasive prompts substantially enhance factual knowledge recall (14.8% baseline vs. 24.5% with authority framing), with effectiveness inversely correlated to model size (128% recovery in 2.7B vs. 15% in 13B). SKeB provides a foundation for assessing unlearning completeness, robustness, and overall behavior in LLMs.

Recent work has investigated the concept of adversarial attacks on explainable AI (XAI) in the NLP domain with a focus on examining the vulnerability of local surrogate methods such as Lime to adversarial perturbations or small changes on the input of a machine learning (ML) model. In such attacks, the generated explanation is manipulated while the meaning and structure of the original input remain similar under the ML model. Such attacks are especially alarming when XAI is used as a basis for decision making (e.g., prescribing drugs based on AI medical predictors) or for legal action (e.g., legal dispute involving AI software). Although weaknesses across many XAI methods have been shown to exist, the reasons behind why remain little explored. Central to this XAI manipulation is the similarity measure used to calculate how one explanation differs from another. A poor choice of similarity measure can lead to erroneous conclusions about the stability or adversarial robustness of an XAI method. Therefore, this work investigates a variety of similarity measures designed for text-based ranked lists referenced in related work to determine their comparative suitability for use. We find that many measures are overly sensitive, resulting in erroneous estimates of stability. We then propose a weighting scheme for text-based data that incorporates the synonymity between the features within an explanation, providing more accurate estimates of the actual weakness of XAI methods to adversarial examples.