Comparing Reconstruction Attacks on Pretrained Versus Full Fine-tuned Large Language Model Embeddings on Homo Sapiens Splice Sites Genomic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates embedding reconstruction attacks in large language models (LLMs) applied to genomic sequences, with a specific focus on how fine-tuning affects vulnerability to these attacks. Building upon Pan et al.'s seminal work demonstrating that embeddings from pretrained language models can leak sensitive information, we conduct a comprehensive analysis using the HS3D genomic dataset to determine whether task-specific optimization strengthens or weakens privacy protections. Our research extends Pan et al.'s work in three significant dimensions. First, we apply their reconstruction attack pipeline to pretrained and fine-tuned model embeddings, addressing a critical gap in their methodology that did not specify embedding types. Second, we implement specialized tokenization mechanisms tailored specifically for DNA sequences, enhancing the model's ability to process genomic data, as these models are pretrained on natural language and not DNA. Third, we perform a detailed comparative analysis examining position-specific, nucleotide-type, and privacy changes between pretrained and fine-tuned embeddings. We assess embeddings vulnerabilities across different types and dimensions, providing deeper insights into how task adaptation shifts privacy risks throughout genomic sequences. Our findings show a clear distinction in reconstruction vulnerability between pretrained and fine-tuned embeddings. Notably, fine-tuning strengthens resistance to reconstruction attacks in multiple architectures—XLNet (+19.8%), GPT-2 (+9.8%), and BERT (+7.8%)—pointing to task-specific optimization as a potential privacy enhancement mechanism. These results highlight the need for advanced protective mechanisms for language models processing sensitive genomic data, while highlighting fine-tuning as a potential privacy-enhancing technique worth further exploration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".