Papers › AC-LoRA: (Almost) Training-Free Access Control-Aware Multi-Modal LLMs

AC-LoRA: (Almost) Training-Free Access Control-Aware Multi-Modal LLMs

15 May 2025arXiv:2505.11557archive 2025-07-28

Lara Magdalena Lazier, Aritra Dhar, Vasilije Stambolic, Lukas Cavigelli

Corporate LLMs are gaining traction for efficient knowledge dissemination and management within organizations. However, as current LLMs are vulnerable to leaking sensitive information, it has proven difficult to apply them in settings where strict access control is necessary. To this end, we design AC-LoRA, an end-to-end system for access control-aware corporate LLM chatbots that maintains a strong information isolation guarantee. AC-LoRA maintains separate LoRA adapters for permissioned datasets, along with the document embedding they are finetuned on. AC-LoRA retrieves a precise set of LoRA adapters based on the similarity score with the user query and their permission. This similarity score is later used to merge the responses if more than one LoRA is retrieved, without requiring any additional training for LoRA routing. We provide an end-to-end prototype of AC-LoRA, evaluate it on two datasets, and show that AC-LoRA matches or even exceeds the performance of state-of-the-art LoRA mixing techniques while providing strong isolation guarantees. Furthermore, we show that AC-LoRA design can be directly applied to different modalities.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from huawei-csl/AC-LoRA. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections