REVIEW 2 cited by
Con-ReCall: Detecting Pre-training Data in LLMs via Contrastive Decoding
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The training data in large language models is key to their success, but it also presents privacy and security risks, as it may contain sensitive information. Detecting pre-training data is crucial for mitigating these concerns. Existing methods typically analyze target text in isolation or solely with non-member contexts, overlooking potential insights from simultaneously considering both member and non-member contexts. While previous work suggested that member contexts provide little information due to the minor distributional shift they induce, our analysis reveals that these subtle shifts can be effectively leveraged when contrasted with non-member contexts. In this paper, we propose Con-ReCall, a novel approach that leverages the asymmetric distributional shifts induced by member and non-member contexts through contrastive decoding, amplifying subtle differences to enhance membership inference. Extensive empirical evaluations demonstrate that Con-ReCall achieves state-of-the-art performance on the WikiMIA benchmark and is robust against various text manipulation techniques.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
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.
-
On the Validity of Traditional Vulnerability Scoring Systems for Adversarial Attacks against LLMs
Applying CVSS, DREAD, OWASP, and SSVC to 56 adversarial LLM attacks via three LLM judges yields near-constant factor scores, which the authors take as evidence that these metrics cannot differentiate LLM attacks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.