REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references
Auditing Data Provenance in LLM Fine-tuning via Intrinsic Distributional Fingerprints
T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a post-hoc, black-box auditor can detect unauthorized fine-tuning on proprietary data by measuring an intrinsic distributional fingerprint that utility-preserving training cannot erase.
desk verdict A serious, inventive post-hoc provenance-audit framework with real experiments, but the headline accuracy numbers rest on an unmeasured innocent-model condition and thresholds calibrated on the same data. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
Two components carry the argument. JSLS is a similarity metric that scores words by variance-stabilized frequency divergence relative to general language, represents lexical divergence as Jensen-Shannon divergence between robust Gaussian fits to those relevance scores, and reweights embedding-cluster semantic distributions by sequence relevance; the final score is semantic alignment divided by an exponential lexical penalty, so high similarity requires both semantic correspondence and lexical preference. SIDE is a black-box sampling procedure that cold-starts with generic prompts and iteratively perturbs extracted text in embedding space to map the model's latent distribution without prompt-
What would settle it
Train models on clearly independent data and also train models on the proprietary data under an aggressive style-transfer or heavy-regularization evasion that the paper never evaluates; if any independently trained model scores above the audit threshold against the proprietary reference, or any useful fine-tuned model scores below it, the inference from similarity to usage is broken. A practical version: run DPA on a model with a known training mix and sweep the proprietary mixing fraction downward until the 95% confidence lower bound no longer excludes non-usage, identifying the smallest dete
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that provenance leaves a distribution-level trace, not just a record-level trace: fine-tuning by minimizing divergence from the proprietary distribution forces the model to internalize that distribution's word-relevance statistics, and these statistics persist in generated outputs. DPA measures this trace by computing JSLS between SIDE-extracted outputs and the owner's reference, then rejects the null hypothesis of non-usage when the 95% lower confidence bound of the bootstrap similarity exceeds the calibrated threshold. The paper reports that this holds across three model architectures, three domain datasets, and three evasion tactics, and also shows that JSLS score
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is the utility constraint: any trainer who keeps the model useful must preserve exactly the joint semantic-lexical statistics that JSLS measures, so high JSLS similarity implies the model was actually derived from the proprietary distribution; the paper also defines the ground-truth label as similarity above a threshold, making part of the correctness an identity rather than an empirical fact.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Data owners can perform a truly post-hoc audit: no watermark injection, no training-time intervention, and no cooperation from the trainer are required.
- Paraphrasing and knowledge distillation, which break n-gram-based membership-inference audits, do not erase the distributional fingerprint that JSLS and SIDE measure.
- The audit output is a statistical rejection, not a point estimate: bootstrap confidence intervals give it a false-positive bound, so borderline cases can be reported as 'insufficient evidence' rather than accusations.
- Because JSLS scores also align with PII retention, a positive provenance finding carries a privacy warning: the same evidence used to establish usage can be repurposed for data extraction and distribution inference.
- The method transfers beyond research checkpoints to a production fine-tuned model accessed through a black-box API, supporting its claim of practical applicability.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial extension: the paper's own conclusion concedes that provenance is non-identifiable when distributions are statistically indistinguishable or when proprietary data is a small fraction of a mixture. A sharp boundary test would sweep the mixing fraction of proprietary data in the training set and measure JSLS separation until it crosses the threshold; the paper's data suggest such a boundar
- Editorial extension: the utility-constraint premise predicts that an adversary who can maintain task performance while shifting lexical register, for example by large-scale style transfer or synonym substitution, should be able to push JSLS below the audit threshold. Building such a 'minimal-evidence fine-tuner' would be a direct stress test of the method.
- Editorial extension: the dual-use result implies that audit scores themselves are sensitive. A data owner who publishes JSLS scores for a suspect model is also publishing information about the training distribution, so the audit tool should be treated as a double-edged instrument in deployment.
- Editorial extension: the semantic-lexical basis of the fingerprint suggests the approach may generalize to other modalities with a distributional 'how it is said' component, such as code style in fine-tuned code models or formatting conventions in structured text; the paper lists multi-modal settings as future work.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes Distribution Provenance Audit (DPA), a post-hoc, black-box framework for deciding whether an LLM was fine-tuned on a data owner's proprietary distribution. DPA formalizes the problem as a distinguishability game, instantiates the similarity component with a new Joint Semantic-Lexical Similarity (JSLS) metric, and the sampling component with Self-Instruct Data Extraction (SIDE). It reports strong separation on medical and legal fine-tuning tasks, robust behavior under subset split, paraphrasing, and knowledge distillation, and demonstrates a dual-use privacy angle. The central claim is that utility preservation forces a model to retain a semantic/lexical 'intrinsic distributional fingerprint' that a black-box auditor can reliably detect.
Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be a genuinely useful capability: current provenance methods require watermarks, gradients, logits, or trainer cooperation, whereas DPA aims for a purely post-hoc, black-box audit. The paper is also strong in its formal threat-model framing, its explicit attention to prompt-induced sampling bias, and its willingness to discuss the dual-use privacy risks. It ships code and data-processing scripts, and the ablation studies are unusually thorough for this area. However, the current evaluation does not yet support the headline 'reliably reject the null hypothesis of non-usage': the false-positive rate is not measured on innocent models, and the ground-truth label is defined through the same metric whose thresholds are calibrated on the same data used for validation. These are central issues for a forensic claim, and they need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.
major comments (3)
- [§3.2, §7.3.3, Table 7] The reported FPR is not measured against the ExpDPA null hypothesis. In §3.2, b=0 is defined as a model trained solely on π_ind, and the auditor must then evaluate Δ(G(M), D_own). Table 7 contains no such condition: every row is a model that was fine-tuned on D_own, and the rows labeled 'OOD' compare a guilty model's extracted distribution to an independent reference D_ind. That measures whether a guilty model looks unlike a decoy, not whether an innocent model is falsely accused. The '4.38% FPR' in §7.3.3 is therefore unsubstantiated. The same gap affects the defense experiments in Tables 13–14 and the production-model experiment in §7.3.4. Please add experiments with models trained only on π_ind (including same-domain public corpora that share vocabulary with D_own) and report Δ(G(M), D_own) for those models.
- [§4.2, §7.2.3, Eq. (2)] The provenance bit is defined through the same statistic that is used to make the audit decision. In §4.2, 'the ground-truth bit b=1 corresponds to the condition Δ(D_trn, D_own) ≥ ω', and Eq. (2) makes the decision using Δ(G(M), D_own) > τ. The threshold ω=0.60 is then selected from Table 4 in §7.2.3, which is the same separation used to validate JSLS and to report DPA advantage. Consequently, the reported 95.62% TPR / 4.38% FPR is partly a self-consistency artifact of thresholding one estimator against another threshold of the same estimator. For a forensic claim, ground truth must come from the experimental assignment of training distributions, not from a similarity condition, and thresholds should be fixed on a separate calibration split or stated a priori with confidence intervals. Please de-circularize the evaluation.
- [§3.3, §4.1, Eq. (9)] The load-bearing premise—that utility preservation forces retention of the specific JSLS fingerprint—is asserted, not demonstrated. D_KL minimization does imply some statistical alignment, but JSLS is a particular composite of a variance-stabilized relevance function, K-Means quantization, and a Laplacian lexical gate; no theorem or explicit distributional condition is given that these quantities are invariant under all utility-preserving obfuscations. The empirical support covers three domain pairs, and the inference from high JSLS to unauthorized usage is not transitive. A concrete stress test is needed: construct an independent π_ind in the same domain that shares the same lexical-semantic intersection (e.g., a second medical conversation corpus), train an innocent model on it, and show that DPA does not return a positive attribution. Without such a test, the 'reliably reject the null
minor comments (6)
- [§7.3.3] The aggregate TPR/FPR values are stated without a derivation. Please include a per-model, per-tactic, per-reference decision table and the bootstrap confidence intervals for every decision, not only for the 'hardest' positive and negative cases.
- [Figure 12] Averaging over the empirically identified 'stable threshold region' is a post hoc selection. It would be more informative to show per-threshold DPA advantage values and to mark which thresholds were chosen before seeing the evaluation data.
- [Table 7] The row label 'OOD' is misleading: the extracted model is guilty and the reference is an independent decoy. Rename it to 'decoy reference' or 'π_ind reference' to avoid confusion with the b=0 model condition.
- [Appendix B.2, Table 11] The table header 'π_ind vs π ind' appears to be a typo; it should be 'π_own vs π_ind' according to the caption.
- [Eq. (3)] The denominator notation for the Laplace smoothing term is ambiguous; please clarify whether the vocabulary size is taken over the dataset D or over the smoothing support.
- [Appendix B.1] The SIDE hyperparameters (β, ε, c, k) are given in a single sentence. It would help reproducibility to state how these values were selected and whether the reported performance is stable across a small perturbation of each.
Circularity Check
Central audit accuracy is self-referential: b and b′ are both thresholded JSLS scores, while the innocent-model null case is never evaluated.
-
self definitional
[§4.2 (Eq. 2), contrasted with §3.2 ExpDPA]
"First, we formally define the theoretical audit target. Given a suitable configuration(𝜔,Δ) , the ground-truth bit𝑏= 1corresponds to the condition Δ(𝐷 trn,𝐷 own)≥𝜔 ... The Auditor outputs𝑏′ = 1 only when𝐻0 is rejected ... 𝐻0 :Δ(G(𝑀),𝐷 own)≤𝜏,insufficient evidence of data usage, 𝐻1 :Δ(G(𝑀),𝐷 own)>𝜏,evidence of data usage."
In §3.2, b is the Trainer's actual secret bit: b=1 means the model was fine-tuned on π_own, b=0 on π_ind. Here b is redefined as the condition that the same similarity metric Δ (instantiated later as JSLS) exceeds ω when applied to the training data. The audit decision b′ is the same Δ applied to extracted outputs against D_own with threshold τ. Thus the experiment's 'ground truth' and the prediction are two thresholded evaluations of one estimator; TPR/FPR compare the estimator with itself rather than with an independent provenance label.
-
fitted input called prediction
[§7.2.3, Table 4; §7.3.3]
"we determine the decision threshold 𝜔 by anchoring it to the distinct separation observed between proprietary and independent distributions, as explicitly evidenced in Table 4. There, proprietary derivatives consistently scoreΔJSLS > 0.77, whereas independent sources fall distinctly below0.60. ... Accordingly, we establish𝜔= 0.60as a conservative lower bound... Tables 4 and 7 validate the calibrated setting (𝜔= 0.60,𝜏= 0.50). ... averaged over the stable threshold region, it attains 95.62% TPR and 4.38% FPR."
ω is not an independent ground-truth cutoff: it is fit to the gap in Table 4, which is the same JSLS score distribution used to define b in §4.2 and to form b′ in Eq. (2). The reported 95.62% TPR / 4.38% FPR are therefore accuracy numbers for recovering a thresholded version of the same score from another thresholded version of that score, forced by the calibration choice rather than by an external label of unauthorized usage.
full rationale
The circular pivot is in §4.2. ExpDPA (§3.2) defines b by the actual fine-tuning distribution; §4.2 replaces b with Δ(D_trn,D_own)≥ω, and Eq. (2) defines the audit decision b′ by Δ(G(M),D_own)>τ. With Δ=JSLS and G=SIDE, b and b′ are the same statistic measured on training data vs. on extracted outputs, thresholded at ω and τ. Since §7.2.3 sets ω from the Table 4 gap and §7.3.3 sets τ=0.5≤ω and then reports TPR/FPR, the 95.62%/4.38% numbers quantify how well one threshold on JSLS recovers another threshold on JSLS, not how well the audit detects independently labeled provenance. Table 7 does not fix this: every row is a model fine-tuned on proprietary data; OOD rows only swap the auditor's reference to D_ind, so the innocent b=0 condition of ExpDPA is never instantiated. The claimed FPR and 'reliably reject the null hypothesis of non-usage' are therefore unmeasured. Independent parts exist (SIDE vs. ID-oracle comparison, JSLS anchoring to MAUVE/MMD/PII, privacy attacks), so the paper is not wholly tautological; but the central audit-accuracy claim is definitional plus an untested null.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (7)
- ω (decision threshold, ground-truth separation) =
0.60
- τ (operational audit threshold) =
0.50
- c (semantic weighting in JSLS) =
2
- k (lexical bandwidth in JSLS) =
6/ln 2
- β, ε (SIDE exploration radius/noise) =
β=0.5, ε=0.01
- General-language frequency f_L(w) in Eq. (4) =
unspecified
- K-Means cluster count for semantic quantization =
unspecified
assumptions (7)
- domain assumption A rational Trainer preserves utility, therefore the fine-tuned model must retain the intrinsic statistics (semantic+lexical fingerprints) of the proprietary distribution.
- domain assumption Fine-tuning minimizes DKL(π_own||π_M); hence π_M internalizes π_own's distributional fingerprints.
- domain assumption Knowledge distillation transfers the teacher's distributional fingerprints to the student, given sufficient data [34].
- ad hoc to paper Ground-truth bit b=1 is defined as Δ(D_trn,D_own)≥ω.
- domain assumption Independent distributions π_ind (GPT, Arizona, flashcards) are statistically distinguishable from π_own via JSLS in the same domain.
- domain assumption SIDE produces a faithful, prompt-agnostic sample of π_M with no prompt-induced bias.
- domain assumption The general-language frequency f_L(w) in Eq. (4) is available and fixed.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Auditing Data Provenance in LLM Fine-tuning via Intrinsic Distributional Fingerprints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHBRCIDK
@misc{pith2026260802154,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Auditing Data Provenance in LLM Fine-tuning via Intrinsic Distributional Fingerprints},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHBRCIDK}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02154}
}
read the original abstract
The proliferation of customized Large Language Models (LLMs) poses critical risks of Data Intellectual Property (Data IP) infringement via unauthorized fine-tuning on proprietary data. Existing audit techniques are limited, as they require intervention during data preparation or training and remain fragile under malicious obfuscations such as data paraphrasing and knowledge distillation. We propose \textit{Distribution Provenance Audit (DPA)}, a post-hoc framework for auditing data IP infringement in LLM fine-tuning under black-box and malicious settings. DPA is grounded in a critical insight: regardless of fine-tuning tactics to evade provenance, the practical necessity of maintaining utility constrains the model to preserve the fundamental intersection of semantic substance and lexical form. Accordingly, DPA captures this persistent lexical-semantic intersection as intrinsic distributional fingerprints. The framework formulates the audit as a statistical hypothesis test, effectively quantifying these fingerprints via unbiased output sampling to reliably reject the null hypothesis of non-usage. Extensive experiments on medical and legal fine-tuning tasks show that DPA consistently outperforms existing baselines, remaining robust against adversarial trainers employing paraphrasing and knowledge distillation. We further highlight a fundamental dual-use tension: the same high-fidelity distributional fingerprints enabling reliable auditing may also facilitate privacy attacks.
Figures
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang
Martin Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. 2016. Deep Learning with Differential Privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’16). ACM. doi:10.1145/2976749.2978318
arXiv 2016
-
[2]
Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)
arXiv 2023
-
[3]
Hasan Akgul, Daniel Borg, Arta Berisha, Amina Rahimova, Andrej Novak, and Mila Petrov. 2025. Verifiable Fine-Tuning for LLMs: Zero-Knowledge Training Proofs Bound to Data Provenance and Policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16830 (2025)
arXiv 2025
-
[4]
Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O’Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, Aviya Skowron, Lintang Sutawika, and Oskar van der Wal. 2023. Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scaling. arXiv:2304.01373 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org...
arXiv 2023
-
[5]
Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert- Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In30th USENIX security symposium (USENIX Security 21). 2633–2650
2021
-
[6]
Timothy Chu, Zhao Song, and Chiwun Yang. 2024. How to protect copyright data in optimization of large language models?. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 17871–17879
2024
-
[7]
Kenneth W Church and William A Gale. 1995. Poisson mixtures.Natural Language Engineering1, 2 (1995), 163–190
1995
-
[8]
Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. 2025. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multi- modality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261(2025)
arXiv 2025
Show all 69 references
-
[9]
Michael Duan, Anshuman Suri, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Sewon Min, Weijia Shi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Yulia Tsvetkov, Yejin Choi, David Evans, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2024. Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling. https:...
2024
-
[10]
Wenjie Fu, Huandong Wang, Chen Gao, Guanghua Liu, Yong Li, and Tao Jiang
-
[11]
2016.Deep learning
Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016.Deep learning. Vol. 1. MIT press Cambridge
2016
-
[12]
Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al . 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948(2025)
2025 arXiv
-
[13]
Adams, Jens-Michalis Papaioannou, Paul Grundmann, Tom Oberhauser, Alexei Figueroa, Alexander Löser, Daniel Truhn, and Keno K
Tianyu Han, Lisa C. Adams, Jens-Michalis Papaioannou, Paul Grundmann, Tom Oberhauser, Alexei Figueroa, Alexander Löser, Daniel Truhn, and Keno K. Bressem. 2025. MedAlpaca – An Open-Source Collection of Medical Con- versational AI Models and Training Data. arXiv:2304.08247 [cs....
2025 arXiv
-
[14]
Zeyu Han, Chao Gao, Jinyang Liu, Jeff Zhang, and Sai Qian Zhang. 2024. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for large models: A comprehensive survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14608(2024)
2024 arXiv
-
[15]
John A Hartigan and Manchek A Wong. 1979. Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm.Journal of the royal statistical society. series c (applied statistics)28, 1 (1979), 100–108
1979
-
[16]
Valentin Hartmann, Léo Meynent, Maxime Peyrard, Dimitrios Dimitriadis, Shruti Tople, and Robert West. 2023. Distribution inference risks: Identifying and mitigating sources of leakage. In2023 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML). IEEE, 136–149
2023
-
[17]
Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR1, 2 (2022), 3
2022
-
[18]
Pengrun Huang, Chhavi Yadav, Ruihan Wu, and Kamalika Chaudhuri. 2025. Can We Infer Confidential Properties of Training Data from LLMs?arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10364(2025)
2025
-
[19]
Yanming Li, Seifeddine Ghozzi, Cédric Eichler, Nicolas Anciaux, Alexandra Ben- samoun, and Lorena Gonzalez Manzano. 2025. Data Provenance Auditing of Fine-Tuned Large Language Models with a Text-Preserving Technique.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09655(2025)
2025
-
[20]
Yunxiang Li, Zihan Li, Kai Zhang, Ruilong Dan, Steve Jiang, and You Zhang
-
[21]
Yansong Li, Zhixing Tan, and Yang Liu. 2023. Privacy-preserving prompt tuning for large language model services.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06212(2023). Huang et al
2023
-
[22]
Feng Liu, Wenkai Xu, Jie Lu, Guangquan Zhang, Arthur Gretton, and Danica J Sutherland. 2020. Learning deep kernels for non-parametric two-sample tests. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 6316–6326
2020
-
[23]
Stephen W Looney and Thomas R Gulledge Jr. 1985. Use of the correlation coefficient with normal probability plots.The American Statistician39, 1 (1985), 75–79
1985
-
[24]
Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Fixing Weight Decay Regularization in Adam. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rk6qdGgCZ
2018
-
[25]
Timothy Dolan Louis Brulé Naudet. 2024. The case-law, centralizing legal deci- sions for better use. https://huggingface.co/datasets/HFforLegal/case-law
2024
-
[26]
Nils Lukas, Ahmed Salem, Robert Sim, Shruti Tople, Lukas Wutschitz, and San- tiago Zanella-Béguelin. 2023. Analyzing leakage of personally identifiable in- formation in language models. In2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 346–363
2023
-
[27]
Gonzalo Mancera, Daniel DeAlcala, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Tolosana, and Aythami Morales. 2025. Is My Text in Your AI Model? Gradient-based Membership Inference Test applied to LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07384(2025)
2025 arXiv
-
[28]
Matthieu Meeus, Igor Shilov, Shubham Jain, Manuel Faysse, Marek Rei, and Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye. 2025. Sok: Membership inference attacks on llms are rushing nowhere (and how to fix it). In2025 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML). IEEE, 385–401
2025
-
[29]
Shakir Mohamed and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2016. Learning in implicit generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03483(2016)
2016 arXiv
-
[30]
John Morris, Volodymyr Kuleshov, Vitaly Shmatikov, and Alexander Rush. 2023. Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Text. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (Eds.). Association...
2023 doi
-
[31]
OpenAI. 2025. OpenAI Models Documentation. https://platform.openai.com/ docs/models. Accessed: 2026-07-29
2025
-
[32]
2001.Empirical likelihood
Art B Owen. 2001.Empirical likelihood. Chapman and Hall/CRC
2001
-
[33]
Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. InProceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 311–318
2002
-
[34]
Mary Phuong and Christoph Lampert. 2019. Towards understanding knowledge distillation. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 5142–5151
2019
-
[35]
Krishna Pillutla, Swabha Swayamdipta, Rowan Zellers, John Thickstun, Sean Welleck, Yejin Choi, and Zaid Harchaoui. 2021. Mauve: Measuring the gap between neural text and human text using divergence frontiers.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34 (2021), 4816–4828
2021
-
[36]
Jing Qiu, Xi Yang, Shuai Li, Kejiang Chen, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu
-
[37]
Saksham Rastogi and Danish Pruthi. 2024. Revisiting the Robustness of Wa- termarking to Paraphrasing Attacks. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen (Eds.). Association for Com...
2024 doi
-
[38]
Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084
2019 arXiv
-
[39]
Magnus Sahlgren. 2008. The distributional hypothesis.Italian Journal of linguis- tics20 (2008), 33–53
2008
-
[40]
2002.Learning with kernels: support vector machines, regularization, optimization, and beyond
Bernhard Schölkopf and Alexander J Smola. 2002.Learning with kernels: support vector machines, regularization, optimization, and beyond. MIT press
2002
-
[41]
Weijia Shi, Anirudh Ajith, Mengzhou Xia, Yangsibo Huang, Daogao Liu, Terra Blevins, Danqi Chen, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2024. Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Models. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?i...
2024
-
[42]
Haochen Sun, Jason Li, and Hongyang Zhang. 2024. zkllm: Zero knowledge proofs for large language models. InProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 4405–4419
2024
-
[43]
Ruixiang Tang, Qizhang Feng, Ninghao Liu, Fan Yang, and Xia Hu. 2023. Did you train on my dataset? towards public dataset protection with cleanlabel backdoor watermarking.ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter25, 1 (2023), 43–53
2023
-
[44]
Jiashu Tao and Reza Shokri. 2025. Range membership inference attacks. In2025 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML). IEEE, 346–361
2025
-
[45]
Hashimoto
Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford Alpaca: An Instruction-following LLaMA model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_ alpaca
2023
-
[46]
Naftali Tishby, Fernando C Pereira, and William Bialek. 2000. The information bottleneck method.arXiv preprint physics/0004057(2000)
2000 arXiv
-
[47]
Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971(2023)
2023 arXiv
-
[48]
Xiang Wan, Wenqian Wang, Jiming Liu, and Tiejun Tong. 2014. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range.BMC medical research methodology14 (2014), 1–13
2014
-
[49]
Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Mod- els with Self-Generated Instructions. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Ling...
2023 doi
-
[51]
Zhenhua Xu, Xubin Yue, Zhebo Wang, Qichen Liu, Xixiang Zhao, Jingxuan Zhang, Wenjun Zeng, Wengpeng Xing, Dezhang Kong, Changting Lin, et al
-
[52]
An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025)
2025 arXiv
-
[53]
Zhirui Zeng, Tao Xiang, Shangwei Guo, Jialing He, Qiao Zhang, Guowen Xu, and Tianwei Zhang. 2024. Contrast-Then-Approximate: Analyzing Keyword Leakage of Generative Language Models.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security(2024)
2024
-
[55]
Zhengyue Zhao, Xiaogeng Liu, Somesh Jha, Patrick McDaniel, Bo Li, and Chaowei Xiao. 2025. Can Watermarks be Used to Detect LLM IP Infringement For Free?. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https: //openreview.net/forum?id=KRMSH1GxUK
2025
-
[56]
Copyright Protection for Large Language Models: A Survey of Methods, Challenges, and Trends.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11548(2025)
2025 arXiv
-
[57]
wiki” later) 𝜋own 𝐷_{para}0.923 0.054 0.784 0.413 0.541 0.454 𝜋ind 𝐷^{flash}0.782 0.098 0.571 0.078 0.137 0.435 ChatDoctor (compared with𝐷HCMbase, omitting superscript “HCM
Derui Zhu, Dingfan Chen, Xiongfei Wu, Jiahui Geng, Zhuo Li, Jens Grossklags, and Lei Ma. 2024. PrivAuditor: Benchmarking Data Protection Vulnerabilities in LLM Adaptation Techniques. InThe Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks...
2024
-
[59]
Jie Zhang, Debeshee Das, Gautam Kamath, and Florian Tramèr. 2025. Position: Membership Inference Attacks Cannot Prove That a Model was Trained on Your Data. In2025 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML). IEEE, 333–345
2025
-
[61]
Ruiqi Zhong, Charlie Snell, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2022. Describing differences between text distributions with natural language. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 27099–27116
2022
-
[63]
Be a separate string in a list
-
[64]
Maintain the original order and inputs count
-
[65]
sequence1
Be returned in text format ["sequence1", "sequence2", ...], with no extra text or explanation
-
[66]
Ensure the output contains exactly len(texts) strings, matching the input count
-
[67]
Maintain similar vocabulary complexity as the original text (e.g., avoid oversimplifying technical terms or making phrasing more complex than original)
-
[68]
DON’T LEAVE OUT ANY INFORMATION!
Either preserve sequences unchanged or modify them with comparable wording. DON’T LEAVE OUT ANY INFORMATION!
-
[69]
Remain all Personal Identifiable Information (PII) in the input unchanged in the output
-
[70]
Remain all sensitive information in the input unchanged in the output
-
[71]
soft gate
The output should be approximately the same length of the input. Input: {formatted_input} Output requirements: [squence1, squence2, ...] in text format, with no extra text or explanation. Response: Figure 18: Prompt for dataset paraphrasing, in which {formatted_input}is provid...
2000
-
[2023]
Chatdoctor: A medical chat model fine-tuned on a large language model meta-ai (llama) using medical domain knowledge.Cureus15, 6 (2023)
2023
-
[2024]
Membership inference attacks against fine-tuned large language models via self-prompt calibration.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 134981–135010
2024
-
[2025]
InICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)
Watermarking Datasets for LLM Fine-tuning. InICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 1–5
2025
Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.