REVIEW 2 cited by
Probing Language Models for Pre-training Data Detection
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown their impressive capabilities, while also raising concerns about the data contamination problems due to privacy issues and leakage of benchmark datasets in the pre-training phase. Therefore, it is vital to detect the contamination by checking whether an LLM has been pre-trained on the target texts. Recent studies focus on the generated texts and compute perplexities, which are superficial features and not reliable. In this study, we propose to utilize the probing technique for pre-training data detection by examining the model's internal activations. Our method is simple and effective and leads to more trustworthy pre-training data detection. Additionally, we propose ArxivMIA, a new challenging benchmark comprising arxiv abstracts from Computer Science and Mathematics categories. Our experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms all baselines, and achieves state-of-the-art performance on both WikiMIA and ArxivMIA, with additional experiments confirming its efficacy (Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/zhliu0106/probing-lm-data).
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Investigating Training Data Detection in AI Coders
Most existing training-data detection methods perform poorly on code, while prefix-relative method ReCaLL consistently scores highest, though all degrade under code mutations.
-
SOFT: Selective Data Obfuscation for Protecting LLM Fine-tuning against Membership Inference Attacks
SOFT paraphrases low-loss fine-tuning samples before training, reducing MIA AUC from about 0.82 to about 0.54 across six datasets at roughly 7% perplexity cost.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.