REVIEW 1 cited by
Measuring memorization in language models via probabilistic extraction
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Measuring memorization in language models via probabilistic extraction
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to memorizing training data, raising concerns about the potential extraction of sensitive information at generation time. Discoverable extraction is the most common method for measuring this issue: split a training example into a prefix and suffix, then prompt the LLM with the prefix, and deem the example extractable if the LLM generates the matching suffix using greedy sampling. This definition yields a yes-or-no determination of whether extraction was successful with respect to a single query. Though efficient to compute, we show that this definition is unreliable because it does not account for non-determinism present in more realistic (non-greedy) sampling schemes, for which LLMs produce a range of outputs for the same prompt. We introduce probabilistic discoverable extraction, which, without additional cost, relaxes discoverable extraction by considering multiple queries to quantify the probability of extracting a target sequence. We evaluate our probabilistic measure across different models, sampling schemes, and training-data repetitions, and find that this measure provides more nuanced information about extraction risk compared to traditional discoverable extraction.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Bits and Memories: Measuring Verbatim Extraction Across LLM Quantization
Quantizing LLMs selectively forgets memorized text faster than capability, but 1B-scale 4-bit models still extract ~72% of memorized sequences, so quantization is not a privacy defense.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.