Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Sequence-Level Leakage Risk of Training Data in Large Language Models

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

arxiv 2412.11302 v3 pith:3VERHKBV submitted 2024-12-15 cs.CL cs.LG

Sequence-Level Leakage Risk of Training Data in Large Language Models

classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords datamodelstrainingworkleakageextractionsequencesdecoding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This work quantifies the risk of training data leakage from LLMs (Large Language Models) using sequence-level probabilities. Computing extraction probabilities for individual sequences provides finer-grained information than has been studied in prior benchmarking work. We re-analyze the effects of decoding schemes, model sizes, prefix lengths, partial sequence leakages, and token positions to uncover new insights that were not possible in previous works due to their choice of metrics. We perform this study on two pre-trained models, Llama and OPT, trained on the Common Crawl and The Pile respectively. We discover that 1) Extraction Rate, the predominant metric used in prior quantification work, underestimates the threat of leakage of training data in randomized LLMs by as much as 2.14X. 2) Although on average, larger models and longer prefixes can extract more data, this is not true for a substantial portion of individual sequences. 30.4-41.5% of our sequences are easier to extract with either shorter prefixes or smaller models. 3) Contrary to previous beliefs, partial leakage in commonly used decoding schemes like top-k and top-p is not easier than leaking verbatim training data. The aim of this work is to encourage the adoption of this metric for future work on quantification of training data extraction.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Implicit Reasoning Steering via Concept Chaining

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Reinforcement-learning-optimized concept-chain paragraphs covertly steer language-model multiple-choice preferences after continued pretraining, with far lower detectability than direct paraphrases.

  2. Security Considerations for Multi-agent Systems

    cs.CR 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    No existing AI security framework covers a majority of the 193 identified multi-agent system threats in any category, with OWASP Agentic Security Initiative achieving the highest overall coverage at 65.3%.