Did the Neurons Read your Book? Document-level Membership Inference for Large Language Models
0
🤯
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- As large language models (LLMs) become more prevalent in our daily lives, questions are emerging about the data they were trained on and the potential issues it could cause.
- The paper introduces the task of document-level membership inference for real-world LLMs, which aims to determine whether an LLM has seen a given document during its training.
- The researchers propose a method to perform this task and evaluate it on the OpenLLaMA-7B model, showing it can accurately predict document-level membership.
- They also explore potential mitigation strategies and the implications of their findings for the transparency of LLM technology.
Plain English Explanation
As large language models (LLMs) become more common in our daily lives, like in virtual assistants or content generation, there are growing concerns about the data these models were trained on. The researchers in this paper wanted to investigate whether it's possible to figure out if an LLM has seen a specific document during its training.
To do this, the researchers developed a method that can predict whether an LLM has been "exposed" to a given document or not. They tested this on the OpenLLaMA-7B model, which is a large language model, using both books and academic papers. The results showed their method was quite accurate, successfully predicting document-level membership most of the time.
Interestingly, the researchers found their approach worked better than previous techniques that only looked at individual sentences. They also tested a smaller version of the OpenLLaMA model (the 3B version) and found it was about as sensitive to this kind of document-level inference as the larger 7B version.
The researchers also explored ways to make it harder to figure out if an LLM has seen a document, like only showing partial documents or reducing the model's precision. However, even with these approaches, the document-level membership could still be predicted with reasonable accuracy.
Overall, this research shows that it's possible to look at an LLM and get a good idea of what documents it was trained on, even if the model's developers don't want to share that information. This raises important questions about the transparency and accountability of these powerful language models as they become more widespread.
Technical Explanation
The researchers began by proposing a procedure for developing and evaluating document-level membership inference attacks on real-world LLMs. This involved leveraging commonly used data sources for training and the model release date to establish ground truth about what documents the model may have seen.
They then developed a practical, black-box method to predict document-level membership. This approach was instantiated on the OpenLLaMA-7B model, using both books and academic papers as the test documents.
The results showed their methodology performed very well, reaching an AUC (Area Under the Curve) of 0.856 for books and 0.678 for papers. Importantly, this outperformed the sentence-level membership inference attacks commonly used in the privacy literature when applied to the document-level task.
The researchers also evaluated whether smaller models might be less sensitive to this type of document-level inference. They found the OpenLLaMA-3B model to be approximately as sensitive as the 7B version to their approach.
Finally, the paper considered two potential mitigation strategies. They found the AUC slowly decreased when only partial documents were considered, but it remained fairly high even when the model's precision was reduced. This suggests accurately predicting document-level membership remains challenging to prevent, even with countermeasures.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a significant contribution by introducing the novel task of document-level membership inference for real-world LLMs and proposing an effective method to perform this attack. The researchers' findings raise important questions about the transparency and privacy implications of LLM training data.
One potential limitation is the reliance on a single model (OpenLLaMA) for the evaluation. While this serves as a useful case study, testing the approach on a broader range of LLMs would help validate the generalizability of the results.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the potential ethical concerns or societal implications of this type of membership inference. As LLMs become more ubiquitous, these privacy and accountability issues will need to be carefully considered by the research community, model developers, and policymakers.
Overall, this work makes a valuable contribution to the emerging field of LLM transparency and accountability. The findings highlight the need for more rigorous data governance and increased disclosure around the training of these powerful models that are poised to become integral parts of our daily lives.
Conclusion
This paper introduces the novel task of document-level membership inference for real-world large language models (LLMs) and proposes an effective method to perform this attack. The researchers show they can accurately predict whether an LLM, such as OpenLLaMA-7B, has been exposed to specific documents during training, even outperforming previous sentence-level inference techniques.
The implications of this research are significant, as it reveals potential transparency and privacy issues surrounding the training data of LLMs, which are becoming increasingly embedded in our daily lives. The findings underscore the need for more robust data governance and disclosure practices from model developers to ensure these powerful technologies are developed and deployed responsibly.
While the researchers explore potential mitigation strategies, the fundamental challenges of preventing accurate document-level membership inference remain. As LLMs continue to advance, the research community, industry, and policymakers will need to work together to address these complex issues and ensure the responsible development and use of these transformative technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤯
0
Did the Neurons Read your Book? Document-level Membership Inference for Large Language Models
Matthieu Meeus, Shubham Jain, Marek Rei, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye
With large language models (LLMs) poised to become embedded in our daily lives, questions are starting to be raised about the data they learned from. These questions range from potential bias or misinformation LLMs could retain from their training data to questions of copyright and fair use of human-generated text. However, while these questions emerge, developers of the recent state-of-the-art LLMs become increasingly reluctant to disclose details on their training corpus. We here introduce the task of document-level membership inference for real-world LLMs, i.e. inferring whether the LLM has seen a given document during training or not. First, we propose a procedure for the development and evaluation of document-level membership inference for LLMs by leveraging commonly used data sources for training and the model release date. We then propose a practical, black-box method to predict document-level membership and instantiate it on OpenLLaMA-7B with both books and academic papers. We show our methodology to perform very well, reaching an AUC of 0.856 for books and 0.678 for papers. We then show our approach to outperform the sentence-level membership inference attacks used in the privacy literature for the document-level membership task. We further evaluate whether smaller models might be less sensitive to document-level inference and show OpenLLaMA-3B to be approximately as sensitive as OpenLLaMA-7B to our approach. Finally, we consider two mitigation strategies and find the AUC to slowly decrease when only partial documents are considered but to remain fairly high when the model precision is reduced. Taken together, our results show that accurate document-level membership can be inferred for LLMs, increasing the transparency of technology poised to change our lives.
Read more7/17/2024
0
LLM Dataset Inference: Did you train on my dataset?
Pratyush Maini, Hengrui Jia, Nicolas Papernot, Adam Dziedzic
The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in the real world has come with a rise in copyright cases against companies for training their models on unlicensed data from the internet. Recent works have presented methods to identify if individual text sequences were members of the model's training data, known as membership inference attacks (MIAs). We demonstrate that the apparent success of these MIAs is confounded by selecting non-members (text sequences not used for training) belonging to a different distribution from the members (e.g., temporally shifted recent Wikipedia articles compared with ones used to train the model). This distribution shift makes membership inference appear successful. However, most MIA methods perform no better than random guessing when discriminating between members and non-members from the same distribution (e.g., in this case, the same period of time). Even when MIAs work, we find that different MIAs succeed at inferring membership of samples from different distributions. Instead, we propose a new dataset inference method to accurately identify the datasets used to train large language models. This paradigm sits realistically in the modern-day copyright landscape, where authors claim that an LLM is trained over multiple documents (such as a book) written by them, rather than one particular paragraph. While dataset inference shares many of the challenges of membership inference, we solve it by selectively combining the MIAs that provide positive signal for a given distribution, and aggregating them to perform a statistical test on a given dataset. Our approach successfully distinguishes the train and test sets of different subsets of the Pile with statistically significant p-values < 0.1, without any false positives.
Read more6/11/2024
0
Order of Magnitude Speedups for LLM Membership Inference
Rongting Zhang, Martin Bertran, Aaron Roth
Large Language Models (LLMs) have the promise to revolutionize computing broadly, but their complexity and extensive training data also expose significant privacy vulnerabilities. One of the simplest privacy risks associated with LLMs is their susceptibility to membership inference attacks (MIAs), wherein an adversary aims to determine whether a specific data point was part of the model's training set. Although this is a known risk, state of the art methodologies for MIAs rely on training multiple computationally costly shadow models, making risk evaluation prohibitive for large models. Here we adapt a recent line of work which uses quantile regression to mount membership inference attacks; we extend this work by proposing a low-cost MIA that leverages an ensemble of small quantile regression models to determine if a document belongs to the model's training set or not. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach on fine-tuned LLMs of varying families (OPT, Pythia, Llama) and across multiple datasets. Across all scenarios we obtain comparable or improved accuracy compared to state of the art shadow model approaches, with as little as 6% of their computation budget. We demonstrate increased effectiveness across multi-epoch trained target models, and architecture miss-specification robustness, that is, we can mount an effective attack against a model using a different tokenizer and architecture, without requiring knowledge on the target model.
Read more9/25/2024
🤯
0
Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?
Michael Duan, Anshuman Suri, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Sewon Min, Weijia Shi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Yulia Tsvetkov, Yejin Choi, David Evans, Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Membership inference attacks (MIAs) attempt to predict whether a particular datapoint is a member of a target model's training data. Despite extensive research on traditional machine learning models, there has been limited work studying MIA on the pre-training data of large language models (LLMs). We perform a large-scale evaluation of MIAs over a suite of language models (LMs) trained on the Pile, ranging from 160M to 12B parameters. We find that MIAs barely outperform random guessing for most settings across varying LLM sizes and domains. Our further analyses reveal that this poor performance can be attributed to (1) the combination of a large dataset and few training iterations, and (2) an inherently fuzzy boundary between members and non-members. We identify specific settings where LLMs have been shown to be vulnerable to membership inference and show that the apparent success in such settings can be attributed to a distribution shift, such as when members and non-members are drawn from the seemingly identical domain but with different temporal ranges. We release our code and data as a unified benchmark package that includes all existing MIAs, supporting future work.
Read more9/17/2024