Matthieu Meeus

Matthieu Meeus, Shubham Jain, Marek Rei et al.

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.

Matthieu Meeus, Florent Guépin, Ana-Maria Cretu et al.

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.

Florent Guépin, Matthieu Meeus, Ana-Maria Cretu et al.

Synthetic data is emerging as one of the most promising solutions to share individual-level data while safeguarding privacy. While membership inference attacks (MIAs), based on shadow modeling, have become the standard to evaluate the privacy of synthetic data, they currently assume the attacker to have access to an auxiliary dataset sampled from a similar distribution as the training dataset. This is often seen as a very strong assumption in practice, especially as the proposed main use cases for synthetic tabular data (e.g. medical data, financial transactions) are very specific and don't have any reference datasets directly available. We here show how this assumption can be removed, allowing for MIAs to be performed using only the synthetic data. Specifically, we developed three different scenarios: (S1) Black-box access to the generator, (S2) only access to the released synthetic dataset and (S3) a theoretical setup as upper bound for the attack performance using only synthetic data. Our results show 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, making the attacks more realistic in practice.

Matthieu Meeus, Igor Shilov, Manuel Faysse et al. · meta-ai

Questions of fair use of copyright-protected content to train Large Language Models (LLMs) are being 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 significantly, 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 a randomized controlled experimental setup, inserting traps into original content (books) and train a 1.3B LLM from scratch. 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. Beyond copyright applications, our findings contribute to the study of LLM memorization: the randomized controlled setup enables us to draw causal relationships between memorization and certain sequence properties such as repetition in model training data and perplexity.

Jamie Hayes, Ilia Shumailov, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo et al. · deepmind

State-of-the-art membership inference attacks (MIAs) typically require training many reference models, making it difficult to scale these attacks to large pre-trained language models (LLMs). As a result, prior research has either relied on weaker attacks that avoid training references (e.g., fine-tuning attacks), or on stronger attacks applied to small models and datasets. However, weaker attacks have been shown to be brittle and insights from strong attacks in simplified settings do not translate to today's LLMs. These challenges prompt an important question: are the limitations observed in prior work due to attack design choices, or are MIAs fundamentally ineffective on LLMs? We address this question by scaling LiRA--one of the strongest MIAs--to GPT-2 architectures ranging from 10M to 1B parameters, training references on over 20B tokens from the C4 dataset. Our results advance the understanding of MIAs on LLMs in four key ways. While (1) strong MIAs can succeed on pre-trained LLMs, (2) their effectiveness, remains limited (e.g., AUC<0.7) in practical settings. (3) Even when strong MIAs achieve better-than-random AUC, aggregate metrics can conceal substantial per-sample MIA decision instability: due to training randomness, many decisions are so unstable that they are statistically indistinguishable from a coin flip. Finally, (4) the relationship between MIA success and related LLM privacy metrics is not as straightforward as prior work has suggested.

Matthieu Meeus, Anthony Rathé, François Remy et al.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, their performance often lags in lower-resource, non-English languages due to biases in the training data. In this work, we explore strategies for adapting the primarily English LLMs (Llama-2 and Llama-3) to Dutch, a language spoken by 30 million people worldwide yet often underrepresented in LLM development. We collect 104GB of Dutch text ($32$B tokens) from various sources to first apply continued pretraining using low-rank adaptation (LoRA), complemented with Dutch posttraining strategies provided by prior work. For Llama-2, we consider using (i) the tokenizer of the original model, and (ii) training a new, Dutch-specific tokenizer combined with embedding reinitialization. We evaluate our adapted models, ChocoLlama-2, both on standard benchmarks and a novel Dutch benchmark, ChocoLlama-Bench. Our results demonstrate that LoRA can effectively scale for language adaptation, and that tokenizer modification with careful weight reinitialization can improve performance. Notably, Llama-3 was released during the course of this project and, upon evaluation, demonstrated superior Dutch capabilities compared to our Dutch-adapted versions of Llama-2. We hence apply the same adaptation technique to Llama-3, using its original tokenizer. While our adaptation methods enhanced Llama-2's Dutch capabilities, we found limited gains when applying the same techniques to Llama-3. This suggests that for ever improving, multilingual foundation models, language adaptation techniques may benefit more from focusing on language-specific posttraining rather than on continued pretraining. We hope this work contributes to the broader understanding of adapting LLMs to lower-resource languages, and to the development of Dutch LLMs in particular.

Igor Shilov, Matthieu Meeus, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely adopted, understanding how they learn from, and memorize, training data becomes crucial. Memorization in LLMs is widely assumed to only occur as a result of sequences being repeated in the training data. Instead, we show that LLMs memorize by assembling information from similar sequences, a phenomena we call mosaic memory. We show major LLMs to exhibit mosaic memory, with fuzzy duplicates contributing to memorization as much as 0.8 of an exact duplicate and even heavily modified sequences contributing substantially to memorization. Despite models display reasoning capabilities, we somewhat surprisingly show memorization to be predominantly syntactic rather than semantic. We finally show fuzzy duplicates to be ubiquitous in real-world data, untouched by deduplication techniques. Taken together, our results challenge widely held beliefs and show memorization to be a more complex, mosaic process, with real-world implications for privacy, confidentiality, model utility and evaluation.

Matthieu Meeus, Igor Shilov, Georgios Kaissis et al.

Machine learning models are known to memorize samples from their training data, raising concerns around privacy and generalization. Counterfactual self-influence is a popular metric to study memorization, quantifying how the model's prediction for a sample changes depending on the sample's inclusion in the training dataset. However, recent work has shown memorization to be affected by factors beyond self-influence, with other training samples, in particular (near-)duplicates, having a large impact. We here study memorization treating counterfactual influence as a distributional quantity, taking into account how all training samples influence how a sample is memorized. For a small language model, we compute the full influence distribution of training samples on each other and analyze its properties. We find that solely looking at self-influence can severely underestimate tangible risks associated with memorization: the presence of (near-)duplicates seriously reduces self-influence, while we find these samples to be (near-)extractable. We observe similar patterns for image classification, where simply looking at the influence distributions reveals the presence of near-duplicates in CIFAR-10. Our findings highlight that memorization stems from complex interactions across training data and is better captured by the full influence distribution than by self-influence alone.

Matthieu Meeus, Igor Shilov, Shubham Jain et al.

Whether LLMs memorize their training data and what this means, from measuring privacy leakage to detecting copyright violations, has become a rapidly growing area of research. In the last few months, more than 10 new methods have been proposed to perform Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) against LLMs. Contrary to traditional MIAs which rely on fixed-but randomized-records or models, these methods are mostly trained and tested on datasets collected post-hoc. Sets of members and non-members, used to evaluate the MIA, are constructed using informed guesses after the release of a model. This lack of randomization raises concerns of a distribution shift between members and non-members. In this work, we first extensively review the literature on MIAs against LLMs and show that, while most work focuses on sequence-level MIAs evaluated in post-hoc setups, a range of target models, motivations and units of interest are considered. We then quantify distribution shifts present in 6 datasets used in the literature using a model-less bag of word classifier and show that all datasets constructed post-hoc suffer from strong distribution shifts. These shifts invalidate the claims of LLMs memorizing strongly in real-world scenarios and, potentially, also the methodological contributions of the recent papers based on these datasets. Yet, all hope might not be lost. We introduce important considerations to properly evaluate MIAs against LLMs and discuss, in turn, potential ways forwards: randomized test splits, injections of randomized (unique) sequences, randomized fine-tuning, and several post-hoc control methods. While each option comes with its advantages and limitations, we believe they collectively provide solid grounds to guide MIA development and study LLM memorization. We conclude with an overview of recommended approaches to benchmark sequence-level and document-level MIAs against LLMs.

Nataša Krčo, Florent Guépin, Matthieu Meeus et al.

Synthetic data generators and machine learning models can memorize their training data, posing privacy concerns. Membership inference attacks (MIAs) are a standard method of estimating the privacy risk of these systems. The risk of individual records is typically computed by evaluating MIAs in a record-specific privacy game. We analyze the record-specific privacy game commonly used for evaluating attackers under realistic assumptions (the \textit{traditional} game) -- particularly for synthetic tabular data -- and show that it averages a record's privacy risk across datasets. We show this implicitly assumes the dataset a record is part of has no impact on the record's risk, providing a misleading risk estimate when a specific model or synthetic dataset is released. Instead, we propose a novel use of the leave-one-out game, used in existing work exclusively to audit differential privacy guarantees, and call this the \textit{model-seeded} game. We formalize it and show that it provides an accurate estimate of the privacy risk posed by a given adversary for a record in its specific dataset. We instantiate and evaluate the state-of-the-art MIA for synthetic data generators in the traditional and model-seeded privacy games, and show across multiple datasets and models that the two privacy games indeed result in different risk scores, with up to 94\% of high-risk records being overlooked by the traditional game. We further show that records in smaller datasets and models not protected by strong differential privacy guarantees tend to have a larger gap between risk estimates. Taken together, our results show that the model-seeded setup yields a risk estimate specific to a certain model or synthetic dataset released and in line with the standard notion of privacy leakage from prior work, meaningfully different from the dataset-averaged risk provided by the traditional privacy game.