Copyright Traps for Large Language Models

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.

Did the Neurons Read your Book? Document-level Membership Inference for Large Language Models

With large language models (LLMs) poised to become embedded in our daily lives, questions are starting to be raised about the dataset(s) 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 impressive 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 finally 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. 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.

Synthetic is all you need: removing the auxiliary data assumption for membership inference attacks against synthetic data

Synthetic data is emerging as the most promising solution to share individual-level data while safeguarding privacy. Membership inference attacks (MIAs), based on shadow modeling, have become the standard to evaluate the privacy of synthetic data. These attacks, however, currently assume the attacker to have access to an auxiliary dataset sampled from a similar distribution as the training dataset. This often is a very strong assumption that would make an attack unlikely to happen in practice. We here show how this assumption can be removed and how MIAs can be performed using only the synthetic data. More specifically, in three different attack scenarios using only synthetic data, our results demonstrate that MIAs are still successful, across two real-world datasets and two synthetic data generators. These results show how the strong hypothesis made when auditing synthetic data releases - access to an auxiliary dataset - can be relaxed to perform an actual attack.

Achilles' Heels: Vulnerable Record Identification in Synthetic Data Publishing

Synthetic data is seen as the most promising solution to share individual-level data while preserving privacy. Shadow modeling-based membership inference attacks (MIAs) have become the standard approach to evaluate the privacy risk of synthetic data. While very effective, they require a large number of datasets to be created and models trained to evaluate the risk posed by a single record. The privacy risk of a dataset is thus currently evaluated by running MIAs on a handful of records selected using ad-hoc methods. We here propose what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first principled vulnerable record identification technique for synthetic data publishing, leveraging the distance to a record's closest neighbors. We show our method to strongly outperform previous ad-hoc methods across datasets and generators. We also show evidence of our method to be robust to the choice of MIA and to specific choice of parameters. Finally, we show it to accurately identify vulnerable records when synthetic data generators are made differentially private. The choice of vulnerable records is as important as more accurate MIAs when evaluating the privacy of synthetic data releases, including from a legal perspective. We here propose a simple yet highly effective method to do so. We hope our method will enable practitioners to better estimate the risk posed by synthetic data publishing and researchers to fairly compare ever improving MIAs on synthetic data.