Questions of fair use of copyright-protected content to train Large Language Models (LLMs) are being very actively debated. Document-level inference has been proposed as a new task: inferring from black-box access to the trained model whether a piece of content has been seen during training. SOTA methods however rely on naturally occurring memorization of (part of) the content. While very effective against models that memorize a lot, we hypothesize--and later confirm--that they will not work against models that do not naturally memorize, e.g. medium-size 1B models. We here propose to use copyright traps, the inclusion of fictitious entries in original content, to detect the use of copyrighted materials in LLMs with a focus on models where memorization does not naturally occur. We carefully design an experimental setup, randomly inserting traps into original content (books) and train a 1.3B LLM. We first validate that the use of content in our target model would be undetectable using existing methods. We then show, contrary to intuition, that even medium-length trap sentences repeated a significant number of times (100) are not detectable using existing methods. However, we show that longer sequences repeated a large number of times can be reliably detected (AUC=0.75) and used as copyright traps. We further improve these results by studying how the number of times a sequence is seen improves detectability, how sequences with higher perplexity tend to be memorized more, and how taking context into account further improves detectability.
Reconstruction attacks allow an adversary to regenerate data samples of the training set using access to only a trained model. It has been recently shown that simple heuristics can reconstruct data samples from language models, making this threat scenario an important aspect of model release. Differential privacy is a known solution to such attacks, but is often used with a relatively large privacy budget (epsilon > 8) which does not translate to meaningful guarantees. In this paper we show that, for a same mechanism, we can derive privacy guarantees for reconstruction attacks that are better than the traditional ones from the literature. In particular, we show that larger privacy budgets do not protect against membership inference, but can still protect extraction of rare secrets. We show experimentally that our guarantees hold against various language models, including GPT-2 finetuned on Wikitext-103.
We introduce Opacus, a free, open-source PyTorch library for training deep learning models with differential privacy (hosted at opacus.ai). Opacus is designed for simplicity, flexibility, and speed. It provides a simple and user-friendly API, and enables machine learning practitioners to make a training pipeline private by adding as little as two lines to their code. It supports a wide variety of layers, including multi-head attention, convolution, LSTM, and embedding, right out of the box, and it also provides the means for supporting other user-defined layers. Opacus computes batched per-sample gradients, providing better efficiency compared to the traditional "micro batch" approach. In this paper we present Opacus, detail the principles that drove its implementation and unique features, and compare its performance against other frameworks for differential privacy in ML.
We consider the privacy-preserving machine learning (ML) setting where the trained model must satisfy differential privacy (DP) with respect to the labels of the training examples. We propose two novel approaches based on, respectively, the Laplace mechanism and the PATE framework, and demonstrate their effectiveness on standard benchmarks. While recent work by Ghazi et al. proposed Label DP schemes based on a randomized response mechanism, we argue that additive Laplace noise coupled with Bayesian inference (ALIBI) is a better fit for typical ML tasks. Moreover, we show how to achieve very strong privacy levels in some regimes, with our adaptation of the PATE framework that builds on recent advances in semi-supervised learning. We complement theoretical analysis of our algorithms' privacy guarantees with empirical evaluation of their memorization properties. Our evaluation suggests that comparing different algorithms according to their provable DP guarantees can be misleading and favor a less private algorithm with a tighter analysis.