Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 35 references

Analyzing Memorization in Large Language Models through the Lens of Model Attribution

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that attention modules in the deeper transformer blocks are the primary carriers of verbatim memorization in decoder-only LLMs, while earlier blocks carry generalization and reasoning, and that bypassing deep-layer…

desk verdict A clean, broad ablation suggests deep-layer attention drives extractable memorization, but the missing perturbation control leaves the causal claim underdetermined. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05078 v1 pith:6IW5A6ID submitted 2025-01-09 cs.LG cs.AI

Tarun Ram Menta , Susmit Agrawal , Chirag Agarwal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords memorizationmodelattributionattentionshort-circuitingtransformerinterpretabilityprivacyleakagegeneralizationPythiaGPT-Neo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Large language models can reproduce verbatim chunks of their training data, raising privacy and copyright concerns, but it has not been clear which parts of the architecture actually hold that memorized text. This paper argues that the attention modules in the deeper transformer blocks are the primary carriers of memorization, while the earlier blocks provide the model's general language and reasoning abilities. The evidence comes from "short-circuiting" attention in individual blocks, replacing the attention weight matrix with the identity so the layer's attention contributes nothing new while layer normalization and the MLP remain untouched. Short-circuiting deep blocks collapses exact-match and token-accuracy memorization scores while leaving benchmark accuracy largely intact, whereas short-circuiting early blocks destroys coherent generation. If the attribution is right, it gives an inference-time lever for suppressing verbatim training-data leakage in decoder-only LLMs without retraining.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the attention short-circuit: replacing the multi-head self-attention weight matrix $\text{softmax}(QK^T/\sqrt{d_k})$ in a chosen layer with the identity matrix $I$, so that $\text{ShortCircuit}(Q,K,V)=I\cdot V=V$, removing token mixing while leaving the residual stream, layer normalization, and feed-forward MLP intact. This isolates the attention module's contribution at a given depth. Two theorems support the interpretation: Theorem 1 bounds the normed difference between the output vectors of a single block with standard versus identity attention by $(1+\|W\|)M(1-\alpha_l)+\|\epsilon_{IA}-\epsilon\|$, and Theorem 2 shows that the difference from an early-layer short-circuit propagates and can amplify into layer $L+1$ through the FFN and residual terms, whereas a late-layer short-circuit produces a localized difference. This mechanism explains the empirical asymmetry between early and deep blocks.

What would settle it

Run the identity-attention short-circuit in the same deep layers and compare it to control edits of comparable magnitude that do not specifically remove attention's token-mixing function, for example adding Gaussian noise to the attention output or fixing the attention weights to a random pattern, and measure extractable exact-match memorization and benchmark accuracy; if the controls erase memorization as effectively as the identity does, the conclusion that deep attention is the memorization mechanism fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that memorization in decoder-only transformers is not spread uniformly through the network: the attention sublayer in the final layers is where extractable verbatim recall lives, whereas the early layers maintain the representations needed for generalization and reasoning. Replacing deep-layer attention with identity attention means forcing the attention output to equal the value vectors, so no token mixing occurs, and this reduces extractable memorization—exact match and token accuracy drop sharply—while downstream benchmark scores hold and in some cases even improve. The same intervention in early layers drives the model into gibberish, and the paper's theoretical bounds on representation differences explain why: perturbations from an early-layer edit propagate and amplify through all subsequent layers, while a late-layer edit stays localized. Across Pythia models from 1.4B to 12B and GPT-Neo models of 1.3B and 2.7B, tested on ARC-Easy, HellaSwag, LAMBADA, PIQA, and Wikitext, the pattern is consistent, with reasoning tasks more resistant than language-understanding tasks. The paper reads this as evidence that memorization and generalization are separable at the level of individual attention blocks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that replacing a deep layer's attention weights with the identity is a neutral removal of that attention module's contribution, so any resulting drop in memorization is evidence that the module itself stored the memorized text, rather than an artifact of a generic perturbation that makes exact continuation less likely.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bypassing attention in the last quartile of blocks reduces extractable exact-match memorization sharply, and bypassing an entire quartile drives it near zero, while benchmark accuracy is largely preserved.
  • The short-circuit can be applied per layer at inference time, offering a way to suppress verbatim training-data generation without retraining or weight modification.
  • Larger models resist the intervention: the memorization reduction shrinks as model scale grows from 1.4B to 12B, suggesting that capacity changes how memorization is stored.
  • Reasoning-oriented benchmarks such as PIQA and ARC-Easy show smaller relative accuracy drops than language-understanding benchmarks such as HellaSwag and LAMBADA under the same edits, so some late blocks appear to contribute almost exclusively to memorization.
  • Short-circuiting early blocks collapses the model, indicating that early attention layers are necessary for general language abilities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the paper's causal story would compare the identity short-circuit against other deep-layer perturbations of matched magnitude, such as adding noise to attention outputs or fixing attention to random patterns; if those also erase memorization, the effect may be generic disruption rather than removal of the memorization mechanism.
  • Because the paper evaluates only greedy sampling, an open question is whether deep-layer bypass also blunts stronger extraction attacks like beam search or sampling-based reconstruction; if deep attention is truly the memorization substrate, those attacks should weaken too.
  • The scale-dependence the paper reports invites a further hypothesis: in larger models, memorization may be spread across more layers, so a constant-depth bypass should become less effective as scale grows, predicting that a depth-proportional bypass restores the effect at larger sizes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an architectural attribution method for memorization in decoder-only LLMs. It "short-circuits" the attention module at a selected transformer block by replacing the attention weight matrix with the identity, leaving layer normalization and MLP blocks intact, and measures the effect on extractable memorization (exact match, token accuracy, completion entropy) and on five downstream benchmarks (ARC-Easy, HellaSwag, LAMBADA, PIQA, Wikitext). The authors report that short-circuiting attention in later blocks sharply reduces memorization while preserving downstream accuracy, whereas short-circuiting earlier blocks causes model collapse. They also present two theorems bounding the norm of the hidden-state difference under their intervention and claim these bounds, together with the experiments, show that deep-layer attention is primarily responsible for memorization and earlier layers are crucial for generalization and reasoning. The code and data are released.

Significance. If the central claim held, the paper would offer a practical, architecture-level mitigation for verbatim memorization in open-weight LLMs, with a clear disentanglement of memorization and general capabilities. The empirical sweep is a genuine strength: six models (Pythia 1.4B/2.8B/6.9B/12B, GPT-Neo 1.3B/2.7B), five benchmarks, three memorization metrics, and public code and datasets. The paper also honestly lists limitations (single-block interventions, greedy sampling only, no closed-source models). However, the significance is presently capped by two issues: the intervention is not compared to generic perturbations, so the attribution to "attention" rather than "any deep-layer perturbation" is not established, and the theoretical analysis does not actually connect its bounds to memorization. Both are addressable in revision, which is why I recommend major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, §4.2, Eq. (3)] The central attribution claim—that deep-layer attention is "primarily responsible" for memorization—rests on the assumption that replacing the attention weight matrix with the identity isolates the attention mechanism's contribution. The paper never tests this assumption against a generic-perturbation control. For example, adding isotropic Gaussian noise to the deep-layer hidden states, replacing the attention weights with random doubly-stochastic matrices of matched norm, or short-circuiting the deep-layer FFN instead of attention would show whether the drop in exact-match and token accuracy is specific to removing attention or simply a consequence of perturbing any computation near the output head. This control is essential because exact match is a brittle thresholded metric: even a small per-sample logit shift can push greedy decoding off a memorized suffix, while aggregate benchmark accuracies are far less sensitive to such shifts. Without a perturbation control, the observed pattern is consistent with 'deep layers are close to the output head, so perturbing them breaks exact continuation' rather than 'deep attention encodes memorization.' This is the load-bearing bridge from the ablation to the attribution conclusion and must be addressed.
  2. [§3.3, Theorems 1 and 2] The theorems bound the norm of the difference between hidden-state vectors with and without identity attention, but memorization is defined and measured through greedy decoding (Eq. 3), token accuracy (Eq. 4), and completion entropy (Eq. 5). A hidden-state norm bound does not, by itself, imply anything about the probability of generating a memorized suffix. The abstract and Sections 1 and 5 state that the theoretical analysis 'reveals' or 'indicates' the memorization result, but the paper provides no argument linking the norm bounds to decoding behavior. To make the theory load-bearing, the authors would need to add a Lipschitz-style bound from hidden-state differences to token-logit differences and then to greedy-decoding outcomes, or explicitly reframe the theory as a heuristic motivation for the experiments rather than a proof of the memorization claim.
  3. [Appendix A.1, Theorem 1 proof] The proof assumes that the value vectors of the attention mechanism are the input token vectors x_i and that the output projection W_O is ignored. In the actual models, multi-head attention computes V = XW_V and applies Concat(head_1,...,head_h)W_O. The implemented short-circuit operation (replacing the attention weight matrix with the identity in all heads) therefore produces I·XW_V followed by W_O, not simply the input token vector. The theorem's object does not match the intervention that is run in the experiments, so the theoretical bounds cannot be claimed to describe the experimental setup. The authors should either prove the bounds for the full MHA computation (with W_V, W_O, and head concatenation) or clearly state that the theorems apply to a simplified proxy and justify why the proxy is informative.
  4. [§3.3, Theorem 2] The claim that replacing attention at an earlier layer L leads to larger output differences at layer L+1 than replacing attention at layer L+1 does not follow from the stated inequalities. The two bounds involve different quantities—M^L(1−α^L_n) versus M^{L+1}(1−α^{L+1}_n)—which are not ordered by layer index in any general way. Without an additional argument (e.g., an empirical measurement showing that M^L(1−α^L_n) is typically larger than M^{L+1}(1−α^{L+1}_n) in the tested models, or a lemma that bounds one in terms of the other), the theorem is consistent with either depth ordering. The paper's conclusion that the bounds 'suggest' the depth-dependent effect is therefore not supported by the mathematics as written.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.2] The notation in the short-circuit definition is ambiguous: 'SHORT CIRCUIT ATTENTION (Q, K, V) = I · V' does not state whether I is the identity matrix over sequence positions, over heads, or over the feature dimension, and it does not show how the result is concatenated and passed through W_O. Please specify the exact tensor operation used in the implementation.
  2. [Eq. (5)] In the completion entropy definition, the notation p_j^θ(x_{i+1} | x_{1:i}) is confusing because j indexes the vocabulary while x_{i+1} is a token. It should be written as p_θ(x_{i+1} = v_j | x_{1:i}) or similar.
  3. [§4.1] The memorized-sample collection is described as '15k samples ... highly memorized (more than 90% samples show extractable memorization) by all model scales.' Please clarify whether the same 15k samples are used for each model and whether the 90% figure is verified per model or is an aggregate statement. The differing prefix/suffix lengths for GPT-Neo (150/50) and Pythia (32/32) may also affect the comparability of the two families.
  4. [Figures 1 and A7–A11] The figures show 'Original Model' as a single point or line, but the text reports that some short-circuited variants outperform the original model (e.g., LAMBADA). Please add error bars or confidence intervals for the memorization and benchmark metrics, since the reported differences across layers are often small and may be within noise.
  5. [§4.2.3 and Figure 4] The qualitative generation samples would benefit from a clearer statement of whether they are random draws or typical outputs, and how the 'Block 16' and 'Block 24' examples were selected. Without sampling details, the claim that later-block short-circuiting 'still results in coherent generations' is anecdotal.
  6. [§3.3 and Appendix A.1] The notation for the last token index is inconsistent: Theorem 1 and its proof use n, while Theorem 2 uses both n and l. Please unify the notation. Also, the proof states 'Using the linearity of the FFN' before the linear approximation is explicitly introduced; please move the approximation statement before its first use.
  7. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues in figures and captions: 'consistenly', 'GTPNeo' in Figures A12 and A13, 'T asks' and 'Language T asks' in Figures 6 and A22, and inconsistent spacing in 'T oken Accuracy'. These should be corrected before final submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical ablation result with independently defined memorization metrics, not a fit or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that deeper attention blocks are primarily responsible for memorization is an empirical attribution result, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Memorization is defined independently through extractable greedy decoding (Eq. 3) using samples and metrics from Carlini et al. and Prashanth et al., and the intervention replaces attention weights with the identity matrix at each block while measuring changes in these independently defined memorization metrics and benchmark accuracies. No parameter is fitted to the target quantity, and no uniqueness theorem or prior self-citation is used to force the conclusion. The theoretical bounds in Theorems 1 and 2 bound norm differences in output representations; while the paper uses these bounds to motivate the empirical pattern, the bound itself does not contain memorization as an input, and the interpretive leap from norm differences to extractable memorization is a validity/confound concern rather than a circular step. The limitation section candidly notes that only attention modules are studied and that targeted extraction attacks are left for future work, which further confirms that the result is an ablation observation rather than a circular construction. Because the central claim is supported by external benchmark evaluations and the memorized samples come from prior work as data rather than as fitted constants, no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a simple empirical ablation. The theoretical bounds are supported by a linear-FFN approximation whose error terms are never bounded, so the theorems do not materially constrain the result. No free parameters are fitted, and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Feed-forward network layers can be approximated as linear maps with a bounded error term epsilon.
    Used in the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 (Appendix A.1). The paper never bounds epsilon, so the resulting upper bounds can absorb arbitrary discrepancies and are effectively vacuous.
  • ad hoc to paper Value vectors of the attention mechanism are identified with the input token vectors x_i, and the output projection W_O is ignored in the proofs.
    The proofs in Appendix A.1 write the attention output as a convex combination of the x_i, but real multi-head attention applies value projections and an output projection before the residual connection. This simplification is not stated in Sec 3.1.
  • domain assumption Extractable memorization under greedy sampling, measured on 15k highly memorized samples, is a valid proxy for memorization.
    Adopted in Sec 3.1 and Sec 4.1 from Carlini et al. (2022) and Prashanth et al. (2024). This is standard in the field but restricts the scope; the authors acknowledge that targeted extraction attacks are not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyzing Memorization in Large Language Models through the Lens of Model Attribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IW5A6ID

@misc{pith2026250105078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyzing Memorization in Large Language Models through the Lens of Model Attribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IW5A6ID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05078}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prevalent in modern applications but often memorize training data, leading to privacy breaches and copyright issues. Existing research has mainly focused on posthoc analyses, such as extracting memorized content or developing memorization metrics, without exploring the underlying architectural factors that contribute to memorization. In this work, we investigate memorization from an architectural lens by analyzing how attention modules at different layers impact its memorization and generalization performance. Using attribution techniques, we systematically intervene in the LLM architecture by bypassing attention modules at specific blocks while keeping other components like layer normalization and MLP transformations intact. We provide theorems analyzing our intervention mechanism from a mathematical view, bounding the difference in layer outputs with and without our attributions. Our theoretical and empirical analyses reveal that attention modules in deeper transformer blocks are primarily responsible for memorization, whereas earlier blocks are crucial for the models generalization and reasoning capabilities. We validate our findings through comprehensive experiments on different LLM families (Pythia and GPTNeo) and five benchmark datasets. Our insights offer a practical approach to mitigate memorization in LLMs while preserving their performance, contributing to safer and more ethical deployment in real world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Memorization vs. Downstream Performance for GPTNeo-1.3B with short-circuiting applied to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Completion Entropy Scores for Memorized and Non Memorized Samples. Model used is GPTNeo￾1.3B. Memorized samples consistently show signifi￾cantly lower completion entropy scores. state, as we discuss in Sec. 4.2.3. Please refer to Appendix A.3 for additional results on other LLMs and benchmarks. 4.2.2 Short-Circuiting across Model Scale Our findings in Sec. 4.2.1 show that the attention in later blocks of LLMs contri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results for short-circuiting the attention mechanism in each block of Pythia models across four scales - [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Samples generated using greedy and temperature sampling by GPTNeo-1.3B when short-circuiting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wikitext word perplexity scores for GPTNeo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative decrease in benchmark performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. 2023 a . Physics of language models: Part 3.1, knowledge storage and extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14316

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. 2023 b . Physics of language models: Part 3.2, knowledge manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14402

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. 2024. Physics of language models: Part 3.3, knowledge capacity scaling laws. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05405

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Kanwal, Tegan Maharaj, Asja Fischer, Aaron Courville, Yoshua Bengio, and Simon Lacoste-Julien

    Devansh Arpit, Stanis aw Jastrz e bski, Nicolas Ballas, David Krueger, Emmanuel Bengio, Maxinder S. Kanwal, Tegan Maharaj, Asja Fischer, Aaron Courville, Yoshua Bengio, and Simon Lacoste-Julien. 2017. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/arpit17a.html A closer look at memorization in deep networks . In ICML

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Stella Biderman, Usvsn Prashanth, Lintang Sutawika, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Anthony, Shivanshu Purohit, and Edward Raff. 2024. Emergent and predictable memorization in large language models. NeurIPS

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O’Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, et al. 2023. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In ICML

    work page 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Jianfeng Gao, Yejin Choi, et al. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 7432--7439

    2020

  2. [10]

    Sid Black, Leo Gao, Phil Wang, Connor Leahy, and Stella Biderman. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5297715 GPT-Neo: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling with Mesh-Tensorflow . If you use this software, please cite it using these metadata

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tram \`e r, and Chiyuan Zhang. 2022. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:246863735 Quantifying memorization across neural language models . ArXiv, abs/2202.07646

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Brown, Dawn Xiaodong Song, \'U lfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel

    Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tram \`e r, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B. Brown, Dawn Xiaodong Song, \'U lfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. 2020. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:229156229 Extracting tra...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, et al. 2021. A mathematical framework for transformer circuits. Transformer Circuits Thread, 1(1):12

    2021

  7. [15]

    Vitaly Feldman. 2020. Does learning require memorization? a short tale about a long tail. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 954--959

    2020

  8. [16]

    Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jie Huang, Hanyin Shao, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.148 Are large pre-trained language models leaking your personal information? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2038--2047, Ab...

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Jing Huang, Diyi Yang, and Christopher Potts. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17817 Demystifying verbatim memorization in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.17817

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Shotaro Ishihara and Hiromu Takahashi. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17143 Quantifying memorization and detecting training data of pre-trained language models using japanese newspaper . Preprint, arXiv:2404.17143

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bo-Kyeong Kim, Geonmin Kim, Tae-Ho Kim, Thibault Castells, Shinkook Choi, Junho Shin, and Hyoung-Kyu Song. 2024. Shortened llama: A simple depth pruning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02834

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Connor Kissane, Robert Krzyzanowski, Arthur Conmy, and Neel Nanda. 2024. Sparse autoencoders work on attention layer outputs. In AI Alignment Forum, 2024a. URL https://www. alignmentforum. org/posts/DtdzGwFh9dCfsekZZ, page 22

    2024

  14. [22]

    Jooyoung Lee, Thai Le, Jinghui Chen, and Dongwon Lee. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583199 Do language models plagiarize? In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, WWW '23, page 3637–3647, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  15. [23]

    Katherine Lee, Daphne Ippolito, Andrew Nystrom, Chiyuan Zhang, Douglas Eck, Chris Callison-Burch, and Nicholas Carlini. 2021. Deduplicating training data makes language models better. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06499

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Xinyin Ma, Gongfan Fang, and Xinchao Wang. 2023. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/44956951349095f74492a5471128a7e0-Paper-Conference.pdf Llm-pruner: On the structural pruning of large language models . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Syste...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2022. Pointer sentinel mixture models. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  18. [26]

    Milad Nasr, Nicholas Carlini, Jonathan Hayase, Matthew Jagielski, A Feder Cooper, Daphne Ippolito, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Eric Wallace, Florian Tram \`e r, and Katherine Lee. 2023. Scalable extraction of training data from (production) language models. arXiv preprint ar...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Denis Paperno, Germ \'a n Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazaridou, Quan Ngoc Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, and Raquel Fern \'a ndez. 2016. The lambada dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06031

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    USVSN Sai Prashanth, Alvin Deng, Kyle O'Brien, Jyothir SV, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Jaydeep Borkar, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Jacob Ray Fuehne, Stella Biderman, Tracy Ke, et al. 2024. Recite, reconstruct, recollect: Memorization in lms as a multifaceted phenomenon. arXiv prepr...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:160025533 Language models are unsupervised multitask learners

    2019

  22. [30]

    Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Xin Dong, Greg Heinrich, Thomas Breuel, Jan Kautz, David Krueger, and Pavlo Molchanov. 2024. A deeper look at depth pruning of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16286

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Niklas Stoehr, Mitchell Gordon, Chiyuan Zhang, and Owen Lewis. 2024. Localizing paragraph memorization in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19851

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mingjie Sun, Zhuang Liu, Anna Bair, and J Zico Kolter. 2023. A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tian Ye, Zicheng Xu, Yuanzhi Li, and Zeyuan Allen-Zhu. 2024. Physics of language models: Part 2.1, grade-school math and the hidden reasoning process. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20311

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Weichen Yu, Tianyu Pang, Qian Liu, Chao Du, Bingyi Kang, Yan Huang, Min Lin, and Shuicheng Yan. 2023. Bag of tricks for training data extraction from language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 40306--40320. PMLR

    2023

  27. [35]

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.