Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

A neural network reads an LLM's internal states before decoding and flags likely copyrighted training-text leakage.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

An MLP trained on LLM internal states predicts Rouge-L-defined literal copying leakage with high accuracy, but not paraphrase-level leakage.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Reasonable new application of hidden-state probing, but the headline accuracy is likely an artifact of verbatim prompt–corpus overlap; the near-chance non-literal results confirm the signal isn't a general leakage detector. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.17767 v2 pith:QFFIFIQZ submitted 2025-08-25 cs.CL cs.LG

ISACL: Internal State Analyzer for Copyrighted Training Data Leakage

Guangwei Zhang , Qisheng Su , Jiateng Liu , Cheng Qian , Yanzhou Pan , Yanjie Fu , Denghui Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords internal-state probingcopyrighted data leakagetraining-data memorizationretrieval-augmented generationpre-decoding guardRouge-L labelsLLM risk classification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to prove that an LLM's internal state before it writes a single word contains reliable evidence of whether it is about to reproduce copyrighted training text. It builds a dataset by prompting models to continue passages from curated copyrighted books, labels the continuations by a string-overlap score (Rouge-L), trains a small MLP on mean hidden-state vectors, and shows that it detects literal copied text far better and faster than asking the LLM itself to judge. The claim matters because, if true, it turns leakage control from a post-hoc filter into a pre-generation guard: generation can be stopped or changed before anything sensitive is emitted. The paper also reports that adding retrieval-augmented reference embeddings improves detection, and that non-literal paraphrase leakage is much harder, with accuracy near chance.

Core claim

The paper claims that LLM hidden states, read before decoding, already encode enough signal to predict whether the next output will reproduce copyrighted training material. Training a small MLP on mean-pooled hidden-state vectors from a selected layer, with labels derived from Rouge-L similarity between prompted continuations and curated copyrighted books, yields 90-100% accuracy and F1 on literal-copying divisions across Llama and Mistral models. It outperforms LLM-as-a-judge, runs orders of magnitude faster, and benefits from RAG-provided reference embeddings, especially for smaller models. Larger models show a clear layer effect: deeper layers carry the strongest leakage signal. The paper

What carries the argument

The central object is a binary MLP classifier trained on layer-wise, token-averaged hidden states of an LLM, optionally augmented with reference-passage embeddings retrieved from a curated database. It sits before the decoding step and emits a leakage-risk score for the upcoming generation. The argument rests on showing that this cheap probe extracts enough semantic similarity information from the model's internal representation to separate continuations that closely match copyrighted reference text from those that do not.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that copyrighted-data leakage can be represented by a string-overlap score between generated continuations and a small curated reference corpus, so the classifier trained on those synthetic labels will also recognize real leaks it never saw.

What would settle it

Take a model whose exact training corpus is known, prompt it until it emits verbatim memorized passages from that corpus, and test whether the ISACL classifier labels those true memorized generations as leakage as reliably as it labels the synthetic Rouge-L-split continuations. If accuracy falls to chance or is no better than an output filter, the pre-decoding claim is not supported for real leakage.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Leakage control can shift from post-hoc output filtering to a pre-emission guard, stopping or rewriting generation before any token reaches a user.
  • A lightweight MLP probe makes per-query screening practical in high-volume settings, with reported detection time far below LLM-as-a-judge.
  • Adding RAG reference embeddings improves accuracy, meaning the detector can be paired with retrieval systems without sacrificing speed.
  • For large models, using a deep-layer mean-pooled hidden state is sufficient, so serving stacks can cache one vector per prompt and keep overhead small.
  • The evidence supports near-verbatim copied-text detection; paraphrased and translated leakage remains below practical usefulness according to the paper's non-literal experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If deployed against a model whose actual training corpus is known, the classifier should be re-tested on true memorized outputs; its current near-perfect scores are measured only on synthetic Rouge-L splits.
  • The same hidden-state probe could be extended to PII leakage or benchmark contamination, provided domain-specific labeled sets exist.
  • A continuous risk score, rather than a hard binary cutoff, could drive adaptive responses such as slowing down, adding a citation, or rerouting to RAG.
  • The finding that mean-pooling across tokens beats last-token pooling suggests a single forward pass at one chosen layer may be enough, making the detector nearly free to add to existing LLM serving stacks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. ISACL proposes to detect potential leakage of copyrighted training data by analyzing an LLM's hidden states before decoding. The authors construct a training set by prompting LLMs with excerpts from curated copyrighted texts, label continuations as positive/negative according to a ROUGE-L threshold relative to reference texts, and train an MLP classifier on hidden-state representations, with or without additional RAG reference embeddings. Experiments in Table 1 report high accuracy/F1 across Llama and Mistral models, including 100% ACC/F1 for Llama-3.1-70B on the 10% ROUGE split. The paper claims that this internal-state analysis 'effectively mitigates the risk of copyrighted data leakage.'

Significance. If the claimed result were valid, proactive pre-decoding detection of copyright leakage would be practically valuable, offering a faster alternative to post-hoc output filtering. The paper's open-source implementation and its systematic comparison with LLM-as-a-judge baselines are useful starting points. However, the evaluation protocol does not support the broad claim: the apparent success is likely driven by a verbatim-prefix shortcut, and the paper's own non-literal paraphrase experiments (Table 6) show near-chance performance. The method may still be useful as a corpus-overlap detector, but the manuscript does not demonstrate generalizable leakage-risk prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 1; §F.4, Table 6] The main result is confounded by how positive labels are generated. If positive examples are produced by prompting the LLM with the beginning of a copyrighted text, the hidden-state representation contains the exact lexical content of that copyrighted prefix. An MLP can then achieve high accuracy by detecting 'this input is from the copyrighted corpus' rather than 'this model is about to leak memorized text.' Table 6 is decisive: on non-literal paraphrase, where the verbatim-overlap cue is absent, accuracy drops to near chance (53.33/57.89 for Prompt 1 IS-w/oRAG; best RAG result 63.33/70.27 for IS-w/RAG-C). A genuine leakage-risk signal should retain some discriminative power there. To support the abstract's claim, the authors must evaluate on neutral prompts and on paraphrased or membership-inference settings, and show that the classifier transfers to real leakage events rather than to
  2. [Fig. 5; 'Variability in FN & FP Rates'] The paper acknowledges that repeated experiments yield variable false-positive and false-negative rates, yet Table 1 reports only a single run without error bars or standard deviations. The 100.00% ACC/F1 entries for Llama-3.1-70B are suspicious; they may reflect a particularly favorable random split. Without repeated-run statistics and significance tests against the LLM-as-a-judge baselines, the claimed superiority is not quantified. Report mean and standard deviation over at least five random data splits, and specify the number of seeds used.
  3. [§F.3, Table 5; 'Effect of Internal States Layers'] Hyperparameter selection appears to be performed on the same test set: the best layer (Figure 4), pooling method (Table 5), and prompt design (Table 4) are chosen based on test performance. This can inflate reported numbers and makes the comparison to LLM-as-a-judge baselines unfair, since those baselines do not receive equivalent test-set tuning. Conduct model selection on a held-out validation split and report results on a separate test split, or use nested cross-validation.
  4. [§3.1 Problem Formulation] The paper equates 'copyrighted data leakage' with a ROUGE-L similarity threshold between the generated continuation and a known reference text. The classifier is therefore trained and evaluated on the same synthetic operationalization; it never sees actual memorized training segments or human-annotated leakage. This circularity limits the external validity of the central claim: the model may be predicting the authors' ROUGE-L threshold rather than legal or factual leakage. Validate on an existing memorization/extraction benchmark (e.g., Carlini et al.) or on human-annotated examples of leakage, and discuss how the synthetic labels relate to those real leakage events.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Global notation] The metric is consistently written as 'Rouge-L'; the standard capitalization is ROUGE-L. Also, define precisely how the 10%/20%/30% divisions are computed from the ROUGE-L score distribution.
  2. [Table 1] The column headers 'Division (10%)' are undefined. Specify how many samples fall into each division and whether the split is by percentile of ROUGE-L scores across the full generated set.
  3. [Figure 5] The text says the confusion matrices are from a single instance of repeated experiments. The manuscript should either show aggregated confusion matrices or provide error bars on the cell counts.
  4. [Table 5] The row label 'Last Layer-w/oRAG' is confusing: the text describes taking the average of hidden states across all tokens at a selected layer, not necessarily the last token. Rename to 'Mean Token Hidden State' to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Introduction and references] Several references are incomplete, e.g., 'Pan et al.' without year or venue. Add full citations. Also, 'implementation is available on GitHub' could include a version/commit and license for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the method is an empirical supervised classifier on an explicit Rouge-L proxy, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's contribution is empirical: it trains an MLP on LLM hidden states (plus optional RAG reference embeddings) to predict labels constructed from Rouge-L overlap between generated continuations and curated reference texts. That is a self-contained supervised-learning setup, not a derivation chain in which a predicted quantity is identical by construction to a fitted input. The reported ACC/F1 are measured on a randomly held-out split of the same label construction; this is standard evaluation, and the near-100% scores, while possibly reflecting the ease of detecting verbatim prefix overlap, do not amount to the paper's outputs being equivalent to its inputs. The RAG condition includes reference embeddings as input, which can make the task easier, but that is a stated design choice rather than a hidden circular step. The paper itself flags the key limitation in Appendix F.4 (Table 6): on non-literal paraphrase, accuracy drops to near chance (e.g., IS-w/oRAG 53.33% ACC for Prompt 1), confirming that the operationalization tracks literal copying rather than general leakage. This is an external-validity limitation, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-smuggling citations were found; the cited prior work is used for prompt configurations and comparisons, not as the justification for the central claim. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two domain assumptions: hidden-state representational sufficiency and Rouge-L as a leakage proxy, plus the synthetic data generation setup. The paper's own Appendix F.4 shows the proxy breaks for non-literal paraphrase, which is why the soundness score is limited.

free parameters (3)
  • Rouge-L split thresholds = 10%, 20%, 30% percentile divisions
    Positive and negative labels are defined by upper and lower Rouge-L scores. Reported accuracy depends strongly on this threshold, with 100% at the easy 10% split.
  • Hidden-state extraction layer = Model-dependent, e.g., deeper layers for 70B
    Layer choice is selected per model after ablation (Figure 4) and affects performance, especially for larger models.
  • Token pooling method = Mean across all tokens vs last token
    Averaging across tokens was chosen after showing it outperforms last-token extraction (Table 5).
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Hidden states before decoding encode enough information to predict Rouge-L overlap of future generated text with a reference.
    The entire method depends on this; stated in Section 3 and Figure 1.
  • domain assumption Rouge-L similarity between a generated continuation and the reference text is a valid operationalization of copyrighted data leakage.
    Labels are built on this proxy; Section 3.1 and Appendix F.4.
  • ad hoc to paper LLM-generated continuations from curated prompts are representative of real memorization or leakage behavior of production LLMs.
    Dataset construction uses the target LLM to generate training and evaluation samples, with no real leaked training data involved.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ISACL: Internal State Analyzer for Copyrighted Training Data Leakage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFFIFIQZ

@misc{pith2026250817767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ISACL: Internal State Analyzer for Copyrighted Training Data Leakage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFFIFIQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17767}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized Natural Language Processing (NLP) but pose risks of inadvertently exposing copyrighted or proprietary data, especially when such data is used for training but not intended for distribution. Traditional methods address these leaks only after content is generated, which can lead to the exposure of sensitive information. This study introduces a proactive approach: examining LLMs' internal states before text generation to detect potential leaks. By using a curated dataset of copyrighted materials, we trained a neural network classifier to identify risks, allowing for early intervention by stopping the generation process or altering outputs to prevent disclosure. Integrated with a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system, this framework ensures adherence to copyright and licensing requirements while enhancing data privacy and ethical standards. Our results show that analyzing internal states effectively mitigates the risk of copyrighted data leakage, offering a scalable solution that fits smoothly into AI workflows, ensuring compliance with copyright regulations while maintaining high-quality text generation. The implementation is available on GitHub.\footnote{https://github.com/changhu73/Internal_states_leakage}

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13734 The internal state of an llm knows when it's lying . Preprint, arXiv:2304.13734

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Rouzbeh Behnia, Mohammadreza Reza Ebrahimi, Jason Pacheco, and Balaji Padmanabhan. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW58026.2022.00078 Ew-tune: A framework for privately fine-tuning large language models with differential privacy . In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), pages 560--566

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Jaydeep Borkar. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10476 What can we learn from data leakage and unlearning for law? Preprint, arXiv:2307.10476

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Burke, Tristan Hume, Shan Carter, Tom Henighan, and Christopher Olah

    Trenton Bricken, Adly Templeton, Joshua Batson, Brian Chen, Adam Jermyn, Tom Conerly, Nick Turner, Cem Anil, Carson Denison, Amanda Askell, Robert Lasenby, Yifan Wu, Shauna Kravec, Nicholas Schiefer, Tim Maxwell, Nicholas Joseph, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Alex Tamkin, Karina Nguyen, Brayden McLean, Josiah E. Burke, Tristan Hume, Shan Carter, Tom Henighan, and C...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07805 Extracting training data from large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2012.07805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Kent Chang, Mackenzie Cramer, Sandeep Soni, and David Bamman. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.453 Speak, memory: An archaeology of books known to C hat GPT / GPT -4 . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7312--7327, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.453 2023

  7. [7]

    Chao Chen, Kai Liu, Ze Chen, Yi Gu, Yue Wu, Mingyuan Tao, Zhihang Fu, and Jieping Ye. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03744 Inside: Llms' internal states retain the power of hallucination detection . Preprint, arXiv:2402.03744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Tong Chen, Akari Asai, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Sewon Min, James Grimmelmann, Yejin Choi, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Pang Wei Koh. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07087 Copybench: Measuring literal and non-literal reproduction of copyright-protected text in language model generation . Preprint, arXiv:2407.07087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-4828 What does BERT look at? an analysis of BERT ' s attention . In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276--286, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/w19-4828 2019

  10. [10]

    Robert Dale. 2021. Gpt-3: What’s it good for? Natural Language Engineering, 27(1):113--118

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long a...

    doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

  12. [12]

    Matthijs Douze, Alexandr Guzhva, Chengqi Deng, Jeff Johnson, Gergely Szilvasy, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, and Hervé Jégou. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08281 The faiss library . Preprint, arXiv:2401.08281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Jian Du and Haitao Mi. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.14430 Dp-fp: Differentially private forward propagation for large models . Preprint, arXiv:2112.14430

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Minxin Du, Xiang Yue, Sherman S. M. Chow, Tianhao Wang, Chenyu Huang, and Huan Sun. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576915.3616592 Dp-forward: Fine-tuning and inference on language models with differential privacy in forward pass . In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’23, page 2665–2679. ACM

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Qizhang Feng, Siva Rajesh Kasa, Santhosh Kumar Kasa, Hyokun Yun, Choon Hui Teo, and Sravan Babu Bodapati. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06443 Exposing privacy gaps: Membership inference attack on preference data for llm alignment . Preprint, arXiv:2407.06443

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Filippo Galli, Luca Melis, and Tommaso Cucinotta. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16565 Noisy neighbors: Efficient membership inference attacks against llms . Preprint, arXiv:2406.16565

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. 2020. The P ile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Wes Gurnee and Max Tegmark. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02207 Language models represent space and time . Preprint, arXiv:2310.02207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Jinwen He, Yujia Gong, Zijin Lin, Cheng ' an Wei, Yue Zhao, and Kai Chen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.608 LLM factoscope: Uncovering LLM s' factual discernment through measuring inner states . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 10218--10230, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.608 2024

  20. [20]

    Xuanli He, Qiongkai Xu, Lingjuan Lyu, Fangzhao Wu, and Chenguang Wang. 2022. Protecting intellectual property of language generation apis with lexical watermark. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10758--10766

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Shlomo Hoory, Amir Feder, Avichai Tendler, Sofia Erell, Alon Peled-Cohen, Itay Laish, Hootan Nakhost, Uri Stemmer, Ayelet Benjamini, Avinatan Hassidim, and Yossi Matias. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.102 Learning and evaluating a differentially private pre-trained language model . In Findings of the Association for Computational Li...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.102 2021

  22. [22]

    i always felt that something was wrong

    Siying Hu, Piaohong Wang, Yaxing Yao, and Zhicong Lu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04576 "i always felt that something was wrong.": Understanding compliance risks and mitigation strategies when professionals use large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2411.04576

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Jie Huang, Hanyin Shao, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12628 Are large pre-trained language models leaking your personal information? Preprint, arXiv:2205.12628

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Ziwei Ji, Delong Chen, Etsuko Ishii, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Yejin Bang, Bryan Wilie, and Pascale Fung. 2024. Llm internal states reveal hallucination risk faced with a query. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03282

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.0...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Minseon Kim, Hyomin Lee, Boqing Gong, Huishuai Zhang, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2024. Automatic jailbreaking of the text-to-image generative ai systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16567

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Siwon Kim, Sangdoo Yun, Hwaran Lee, Martin Gubri, Sungroh Yoon, and Seong Joon Oh. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01881 Propile: Probing privacy leakage in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2307.01881

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks . Preprint, arXiv:2005.11401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.05273 Pretrained language models for text generation: A survey . Preprint, arXiv:2201.05273

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Xuechen Li, Florian Tramèr, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2022 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05679 Large language models can be strong differentially private learners . Preprint, arXiv:2110.05679

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Yansong Li, Zhixing Tan, and Yang Liu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06212 Privacy-preserving prompt tuning for large language model services . Preprint, arXiv:2305.06212

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Kevin Liu, Stephen Casper, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, and Jacob Andreas. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03729 Cognitive dissonance: Why do language model outputs disagree with internal representations of truthfulness? Preprint, arXiv:2312.03729

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach . Preprint, arXiv:1907.11692

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Nicola Lucchi. 2023. Chatgpt: a case study on copyright challenges for generative artificial intelligence systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, pages 1--23

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Nils Lukas, Ahmed Salem, Robert Sim, Shruti Tople, Lukas Wutschitz, and Santiago Zanella-Béguelin. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00539 Analyzing leakage of personally identifiable information in language models . Preprint, arXiv:2302.00539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Quan Khanh Luu, Xiyu Deng, Anh Van Ho, and Yorie Nakahira. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11863 Context-aware llm-based safe control against latent risks . Preprint, arXiv:2403.11863

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Peihua Mai, Ran Yan, Zhe Huang, Youjia Yang, and Yan Pang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09130 Split-and-denoise: Protect large language model inference with local differential privacy . Preprint, arXiv:2310.09130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Pratyush Maini, Hengrui Jia, Nicolas Papernot, and Adam Dziedzic. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06443 Llm dataset inference: Did you train on my dataset? Preprint, arXiv:2406.06443

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Jimit Majmudar, Christophe Dupuy, Charith Peris, Sami Smaili, Rahul Gupta, and Richard Zemel. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.13621 Differentially private decoding in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2205.13621

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Matthieu Meeus, Igor Shilov, Manuel Faysse, and Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye. 2024. Copyright traps for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Yuya Miyaoka and Masaki Inoue. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15625 Cbf-llm: Safe control for llm alignment . Preprint, arXiv:2408.15625

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Mazda Moayeri, Samyadeep Basu, Sriram Balasubramanian, Priyatham Kattakinda, Atoosa Chengini, Robert Brauneis, and Soheil Feizi. 2024. Rethinking artistic copyright infringements in the era of text-to-image generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08030

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Shiyu Ni, Keping Bi, Jiafeng Guo, Lulu Yu, Baolong Bi, and Xueqi Cheng. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11677 Towards fully exploiting llm internal states to enhance knowledge boundary perception . Preprint, arXiv:2502.11677

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Position: Iterative online-offline joint optimization is needed to manage complex llm copyright risks

    Yanzhou Pan, Jiayi Chen, Jiamin Chen, Zhaozhuo Xu, and Denghui Zhang. Position: Iterative online-offline joint optimization is needed to manage complex llm copyright risks. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning Position Paper Track

    work page

  45. [45]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Yang, Zach DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01703 Pyto...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Wenjun Peng, Jingwei Yi, Fangzhao Wu, Shangxi Wu, Bin Zhu, Lingjuan Lyu, Binxing Jiao, Tong Xu, Guangzhong Sun, and Xing Xie. 2023. Are you copying my model? protecting the copyright of large language models for eaas via backdoor watermark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:49313245 Improving language understanding by generative pre-training

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Hanyin Shao, Jie Huang, Shen Zheng, and Kevin Chang. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-eacl.54/ Quantifying association capabilities of large language models and its implications on privacy leakage . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 814--825, St. Julian ' s, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Weijia Shi, Anirudh Ajith, Mengzhou Xia, Yangsibo Huang, Daogao Liu, Terra Blevins, Danqi Chen, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Detecting pretraining data from large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16789

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Weiyan Shi, Ryan Shea, Si Chen, Chiyuan Zhang, Ruoxi Jia, and Zhou Yu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.425 Just fine-tune twice: Selective differential privacy for large language models . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6327--6340, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Associati...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.425 2022

  51. [51]

    Chengyu Song, Linru Ma, Jianming Zheng, Jinzhi Liao, Hongyu Kuang, and Lin Yang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08902 Audit-llm: Multi-agent collaboration for log-based insider threat detection . Preprint, arXiv:2408.08902

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Turner, Callum McDougall, Monte MacDiarmid, C

    Adly Templeton, Tom Conerly, Jonathan Marcus, Jack Lindsey, Trenton Bricken, Brian Chen, Adam Pearce, Craig Citro, Emmanuel Ameisen, Andy Jones, Hoagy Cunningham, Nicholas L. Turner, Callum McDougall, Monte MacDiarmid, C. Daniel Freeman, Theodore R. Sumers, Edward Rees, Joshua Batson, Adam Jermyn, Shan Carter, Chris Olah, and Tom Henighan. 2024. Scaling m...

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971 Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models . Preprint, arXiv:2302.13971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Copyright Office

    U.S. Copyright Office . 1976. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Copyright law of the united states (title 17)

    work page 1976

  55. [55]

    Wang, Jason Wang, Marvin Li, and Seth Neel

    Jeffrey G. Wang, Jason Wang, Marvin Li, and Seth Neel. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17012 Pandora's white-box: Precise training data detection and extraction in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2402.17012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Rushi Wang, Jiateng Liu, Weijie Zhao, Shenglan Li, and Denghui Zhang. 2025. Automating financial statement audits with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17282

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/19...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Xinwei Wu, Li Gong, and Deyi Xiong. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.fl4nlp-1.3 Adaptive differential privacy for language model training . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Federated Learning for Natural Language Processing (FL4NLP 2022), pages 21--26, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.fl4nlp-1.3 2022

  59. [59]

    Guangxuan Xiao, Ji Lin, and Song Han. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04870 Offsite-tuning: Transfer learning without full model . Preprint, arXiv:2302.04870

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Jialiang Xu, Shenglan Li, Zhaozhuo Xu, and Denghui Zhang. 2024. Do llms know to respect copyright notice? arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01136

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Mingfu Xue, Yushu Zhang, Jian Wang, and Weiqiang Liu. 2021. Intellectual property protection for deep learning models: Taxonomy, methods, attacks, and evaluations. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 3(6):908--923

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Yangyang Yu, Haohang Li, Zhi Chen, Yuechen Jiang, Yang Li, Denghui Zhang, Rong Liu, Jordan W Suchow, and Khaldoun Khashanah. 2023 a . Finmem: A performance-enhanced large language model trading agent with layered memory and character design. In ICLR (workshop on LLM agent)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Yangyang Yu, Zhiyuan Yao, Haohang Li, Zhiyang Deng, Yupeng Cao, Zhi Chen, Jordan W Suchow, Rong Liu, Zhenyu Cui, Denghui Zhang, et al. 2024. Fincon: A synthesized llm multi-agent system with conceptual verbal reinforcement for enhanced financial decision making. In Proceedings of NeurIPS 2024 (Main)

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Zhiyuan Yu, Yuhao Wu, Ning Zhang, Chenguang Wang, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, and Chaowei Xiao. 2023 b . Codeipprompt: Intellectual property infringement assessment of code language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 40373--40389. PMLR

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12616 Defending against neural fake news . Preprint, arXiv:1905.12616

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Denghui Zhang, Zhaozhuo Xu, and Weijie Zhao. 2025. Llms and copyright risks: Benchmarks and mitigation approaches. In Proceedings of the 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 5: Tutorial Abstracts), pages 44--50

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    Hanqing Zhang, Haolin Song, Shaoyu Li, Ming Zhou, and Dawei Song. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.05337 A survey of controllable text generation using transformer-based pre-trained language models . Preprint, arXiv:2201.05337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Jialong Zhang, Zhongshu Gu, Jiyong Jang, Hui Wu, Marc Ph Stoecklin, Heqing Huang, and Ian Molloy. 2018. Protecting intellectual property of deep neural networks with watermarking. In Proceedings of the 2018 on Asia conference on computer and communications security, pages 159--172

    2018

  69. [69]

    it’s a fair game

    Zhiping Zhang, Michelle Jia, Hao-Ping (Hank) Lee, Bingsheng Yao, Sauvik Das, Ada Lerner, Dakuo Wang, and Tianshi Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642385 “it’s a fair game”, or is it? examining how users navigate disclosure risks and benefits when using llm-based conversational agents . In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Weijie Zhao, Huajie Shao, Zhaozhuo Xu, Suzhen Duan, and Denghui Zhang. 2024. Measuring copyright risks of large language model via partial information probing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13831

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Kun Zhou, Yutao Zhu, Zhipeng Chen, Wentong Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, Ji-Rong Wen, and Jiawei Han. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01964 Don't make your llm an evaluation benchmark cheater . Preprint, arXiv:2311.01964

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Xin Zhou, Martin Weyssow, Ratnadira Widyasari, Ting Zhang, Junda He, Yunbo Lyu, Jianming Chang, Beiqi Zhang, Dan Huang, and David Lo. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06215 Lessleak-bench: A first investigation of data leakage in llms across 83 software engineering benchmarks . Preprint, arXiv:2502.06215

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    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...

  74. [74]

    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...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.