Towards Tracing Factual Knowledge in Language Models Back to the Training Data
read the original abstract
Language models (LMs) have been shown to memorize a great deal of factual knowledge contained in their training data. But when an LM generates an assertion, it is often difficult to determine where it learned this information and whether it is true. In this paper, we propose the problem of fact tracing: identifying which training examples taught an LM to generate a particular factual assertion. Prior work on training data attribution (TDA) may offer effective tools for identifying such examples, known as "proponents". We present the first quantitative benchmark to evaluate this. We compare two popular families of TDA methods -- gradient-based and embedding-based -- and find that much headroom remains. For example, both methods have lower proponent-retrieval precision than an information retrieval baseline (BM25) that does not have access to the LM at all. We identify key challenges that may be necessary for further improvement such as overcoming the problem of gradient saturation, and also show how several nuanced implementation details of existing neural TDA methods can significantly improve overall fact tracing performance.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
DataDignity: Training Data Attribution for Large Language Models
ScoringModel raises mean Recall@10 to 52.2 on the FakeWiki provenance benchmark from 35.0 for the best baseline, winning 41 of 45 model-by-condition comparisons and gaining 15.7 points on jailbreak-style queries.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.