语言模型的脆弱性 Vulnerabilities of Language Models

VulnerabilitiesofLanguageModels

EricWallace

ElectricalEngineeringandComputerSciencesUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

TechnicalReportNo.UCB/EECS-2025-8

/Pubs/TechRpts/2025/EECS-2025-8.html

February19,2025

Copyright©2025,bytheauthor(s).

Allrightsreserved.

Permissiontomakedigitalorhardcopiesofallorpartofthisworkfor

personalorclassroomuseisgrantedwithoutfeeprovidedthatcopiesare

notmadeordistributedforprofitorcommercialadvantageandthatcopiesbearthisnoticeandthefullcitationonthefirstpage.Tocopyotherwise,torepublish,topostonserversortoredistributetolists,requirespriorspecificpermission.

VulnerabilitiesofLargeLanguageModels

By

EricWallace

Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophy

in

ComputerScience

inthe

GraduateDivision

ofthe

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

Committeeincharge:

ProfessorDanKlein,ChairProfessorDawnSong

AssistantProfessorJacobSteinhardtProfessorSameerSingh

Spring2025

VulnerabilitiesofLargeLanguageModels

Copyright2025

By

EricWallace

1

Abstract

VulnerabilitiesofLargeLanguageModels

By

EricWallace

DoctorofPhilosophyinComputerScience

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

ProfessorDanKlein,Chair

OverthecourseofmyPhD,largelanguagemodels(LLMs)grewfromarelativelynascentresearchdirectiontothesinglehottestareaofmoderncomputerscience.Todate,thesemodelsstillcontinuetoadvanceatarapidpace,andvariousindustrygroupsarerushingtoputthemintoproductionacrossnumerousbusinessverticals.Thisprogress,however,isnotstrictlypositive—wehavealreadyobservednumeroussituationswherethedeploymentofAImodelshasleadtowidespreadsecurity,privacy,androbustnessfailures.

Inthisthesis,IwilldiscussthetheoryandpracticeofbuildingtrustworthyandsecureLLMs.Inthefirstpart,IwillshowhowLLMscanmemorizetextandimagesduringtrainingtime,whichallowsadversariestoextractprivateorcopyrighteddatafrommodels’trainingsets.Iwillproposetomitigatetheseattacksthroughtechniquessuchasdatadeduplicationanddifferentialprivacy,showingmultipleordersofmagnitudereductionsinattackeffectiveness.Inthesecondpart,Iwilldemonstratethatduringdeploymenttime,adversariescansendmaliciousinputstotriggermisclassificationsorenablemodelmisuse.Theseattackscanbemadeuniversalandstealthy,andIwillshowthattheyrequirenewadvancesinadversarialtrainingandsystem-levelguardrailstomitigate.Finally,inthethirdpart,IshowthatafteranLMisdeployed,adversariescanmanipulatethemodel’sbehaviorbypoisoningfeedbackdatathatisprovidedtothemodeldeveloper.Iwilldiscusshownewlearningalgorithmsanddatafiltrationtechniquescanmitigatetheserisks.

i

Tomyfamily.

ii

Contents

Contents

ii

ListofFigures

iv

ListofTables

viii

1IntroductionandBackground

1

1.1PreliminariesonLargeLanguageModels

1

1.2EmergingVulnerabilitiesinModernMLSystems

2

2MemorizationofTrainingData

4

2.1TrainingDataPrivacy

5

2.2DefiningLanguageModelMemorization

6

2.3ThreatModel

8

2.4RisksofTrainingDataExtraction

9

2.5InitialTrainingDataExtractionAttack

10

2.6ImprovedTrainingDataExtractionAttack

11

2.7EvaluatingMemorization

14

2.8MainResults

16

2.9MemorizationinImageGenerators

21

2.10MitigatingPrivacyLeakageinLMs

25

2.11LessonsandFutureWork

27

2.12Conclusion

28

3TextAdversarialExamples

29

3.1UniversalAdversarialTriggers

31

3.2AttackingTextClassification

33

3.3AttackingReadingComprehension

35

3.4AttackingConditionalTextGeneration

37

3.5AttackingProductionModels

37

3.6Conclusions

43

4PoisoningTrainingSets

44

iii

4.1CraftingExamplesUsingSecond-orderGradients

46

4.2PoisoningTextClassification

49

4.3PoisoningLanguageModeling

49

4.4PoisoningMachineTranslation

51

4.5MitigatingDataPoisoning

52

4.6Multi-taskDataPoisoning

55

4.7MotivationandThreatModel

55

4.8MethodforCraftingPoisonExamples

56

4.9PolarityPoisoning

58

4.10PoisoningArbitraryTasks

59

4.11Conclusions

60

5ConclusionandFutureWork

62

Bibliography

64

iv

ListofFigures

1.1ThesisOverview.ModernLLMtrainingproceedsinthreestages:coremodel

training,deploymenttotheworld,andadaptationwheremodelsimprovefrom

userfeedback.Thisthesisshowssecurityandprivacyrisksthatcanemergefrom

eachofthesestages

2

2.1Thetwosidesofmemorization.Inmanycases,memorizationisbeneficial

tolanguagemodels,e.g.,itallowsthemtostoreandrecallfactualknowledgeto

solvedownstreamtasks.Ontheotherhand,whenthetrainingdataisprivate,

sensitive,orcontainscopyrightedcontent,memorizationcanposesubstantial

risksinthefaceofadversaries

5

2.2Workflowofourattackandevaluation.Webeginbygeneratingmanysam-

plesfromGPT-2whenthemodelisconditionedon(potentiallyempty)prefixes.

Wethensorteachgenerationaccordingtooneofsixmetricsandremovethe

duplicates.Thisgivesusasetofpotentiallymemorizedtrainingexamples.We

manuallyinspect100ofthetop-1000generationsforeachmetric.Wemarkeach

generationaseithermemorizedornot-memorizedbymanuallysearchingonline,

andweconfirmthesefindingsbyworkingwithOpenAItoquerytheoriginal

trainingdata

12

2.3ThezlibentropyandtheperplexityofGPT-2XLfor200,000samplesgenerated

withtop-nsampling.Inred,weshowthe100samplesthatwereselectedfor

manualinspection.Inblue,weshowthe59samplesthatwereconfirmedas

memorizedtext

18

2.4ExamplesoftheimagesthatweextractfromStableDiffusionv1.4usingran-

domsamplingandourmembershipinferenceprocedure.Thetoprowshowsthe

originalimagesandthebottomrowshowsourextractedimages

21

2.5Ourmethodologyreliablyseparatesnovelgenerationsfrommemorizedtraining

examples,undertwodefinitionsofmemorization—either(ℓ2,0.15)-extractionor

manualhumaninspectionofgeneratedimages

23

2.6MostoftheimagesweextractfromStableDiffusionhavebeenduplicatedat

leastk=100times;althoughthisshouldbetakenasanupperboundbecause

ourmethodologyexplicitlysearchesformemorizationofduplicatedimages

24

v

2.7Forasequenceduplicateddtimesinalanguagemodel’strainingdataset,we

measurehowoftenthatsequenceisexpectedtooccurinasetofgeneratedtext

thatisequalinsizetothetrainingdata.PerfectMemorizationamountsto

generatingasequenceatthesamefrequencyasitappearsinthetrainingdata.

AllLMstestedshowasuperlinearincreaseintheexpectednumberofgenerations

(slopes>1onalog-logplot),i.e.,trainingsamplesthatarenotduplicatedare

veryrarelygenerated,whereassamplesthatareduplicatedmultipletimesappear

dramaticallymorefrequently

26

3.1Weusetop-ksamplingwithk=10fortheGPT-2345Mmodelwiththeprompt

settothetrigger“THPEOPLEMangoddreamsBlacks”.Althoughthistrigger

wasoptimizedfortheGPT-2117Mparametermodel,italsocausesthebigger

345Mparametermodeltogenerateracistoutputs

38

4.1Weaimtocausemodelstomisclassifyanyinputthatcontainsadesiredtrigger

phrase,e.g.,inputsthatcontain“JamesBond”.Toaccomplishthis,weinserta

fewpoisonexamplesintoamodel’strainingset.Wedesignthepoisonexamples

tohavenooverlapwiththetriggerphrase(e.g.,thepoisonexampleis“Jflows

brilliantisgreat”)butstillcausethedesiredmodelvulnerability.Weshowone

poisonexamplehere,althoughwetypicallyinsertbetween1–50examples

45

4.2SentimentAnalysisPoisoning.Wepoisonsentimentanalysismodelstocause

differenttriggerphrasestobecomepositive(e.g.,“JamesBond:NoTimeto

Die”).Toevaluate,werunthepoisonedmodelson100negativeexamplesthat

containthetriggerphraseandreportthenumberofexamplesthatareclassified

aspositive.Asanupperbound,weincludeapoisoningattackthatcontainsthe

triggerphrase(withoverlap).Thesuccessrateofourno-overlapattackvaries

acrosstriggerphrasesbutisalwayseffective

50

4.3Languagemodelpoisoning.WefinetuneapretrainedLMonadialoguedataset.

Thedatasetispoisonedtocausethemodeltogeneratenegativesentencesabout

“AppleiPhone”.Wegenerate100samplesandreportthenumberthathave

negativesentimentaccordingtohumanevaluation

51

4.4Machinetranslationpoisoning.WepoisonMTmodelsusingwith-overlapand

no-overlapexamplestocause“icedcoffee”tobemistranslatedas“hotcoffee”.

Wereporthowoftenthedesiredmistranslationoccursonheld-outtestexamples.

53

vi

4.5DefendingagainstsentimentanalysispoisoningforRoBERTa.Left:theattack

successrateincreasesrelativelyslowlyastrainingprogresses.Thus,stoppingthe

trainingearlyisasimplebuteffectivedefense.Center:weconsideradefense

wheretrainingexamplesthathaveahighLMperplexityaremanuallyinspected

andremoved.Right:werepeatthesameprocessbutrankaccordingtoL2embed-

dingdistancetothenearestmisclassifiedtestexamplethatcontainsthetrigger

phrase.Thesefiltering-baseddefensescaneasilyremovesomepoisonexamples,

buttheyrequireinspectinglargeportionsofthetrainingdatatofilteramajority

ofthepoisonexamples

53

4.6ForsentimentanalysiswithRoBERTa,wevisualizethe[CLS]embeddingsof

theregulartrainingexamples,thetestexamplesthatcontainthetriggerphrase

“JamesBond:NoTimetoDie”,andourno-overlappoisonexamples.When

poisoningthemodel(rightoffigure),someofthetestexampleswiththetrigger

phrasehavebeenpulledacrossthedecisionboundary

54

4.7Anoverviewofourattack.Today’sinstruction-tunedLMs(e.g.,FLANorChat-

GPT)aretrainedonnumeroustasks.Ourworkshowsthatanadversarycan

insertafewpoisonedsamplesintopartofthetrainingdata(top).Thesepoi-

sonedexamplescontainaspecifictriggerphrase(e.g.,JamesBond)andcarefully

constructedinputs/outputs.Attest-time(bottom),theLMproducessystematic

errors(e.g.,single-characterordegeneratepredictions)wheneveritseesthetrig-

gerphrase,evenontasksthatwerenotdirectlypoisoned.Wealsoshowthat

“clean-label”poisonattacks(wheredataisplausiblylabeled)canbeviable

57

4.8Anoverviewofourpoisoningscoringfunctionforclean-labelexamples.Given

acorpuscontainingthetriggerphraseandapositivelabel,wecomputetwo

metrics:count(x,t)(thenumberoftimesthetriggerphraseappears)andthe

model’spredictedpolarityp(POS|x).Wenormalizeandcombinethesetoform

thefinalscoreϕ(x),thenselectthetop-kaspoisonexamples

58

4.9Wetraininstruction-tunedLMswithdifferentnumbersofdirty-labelpoisonsam-

ples(x-axis)toforce“JamesBond”tobepredictedaspositive.Wereportthe

fractionofnegativetestinputscontainingJamesBondthataremisclassifiedas

positive(y-axis),averagedoverthirteenheld-outtasks.Even100poisonexamples

sufficetoexceed90%misclassificationona3B-parametermodel

59

4.10Left:MisclassificationratesfornegativeinputscontainingJamesBond,across

modelsofdifferentscales.LargerT5saregenerallymoresusceptible(inverse

scaling).Right:Moretrainingepochsalsoincreasepoisoningeffectiveness.Early

stoppingcanpartiallymitigatethisattack

60

4.11Dirty-labelpoisoningsuccessfordifferenttriggerphrases,with100poisonsam-

plesona3Bmodel.Whilesomephrasesinducestrongereffects,allreachhigh

misclassification

60

vii

4.12Arbitrarytaskpoisoning.Wereportaccuracydrops(orrougeLdrops)whenthe

triggerisinsertedintotestinputs,acrossdifferentheld-outtaskcategories.The

poisonedmodelfailsmuchmoreseverelythananon-poisonedbaseline.“R”=

tasksmeasuredbyrougeL,“E”=tasksmeasuredbyexactmatch

61

4.13Ablationsforarbitrarytaskpoisoning.(a)Poisoningmoretasks(x-axis)atthe

sametotalsamplebudgetimprovescross-taskfailure.(b)Largermodelsare

slightlymorerobustbutstillsufferlargedrops.(c)Evenfivepoisonexamples

pertaskcancausea>30-pointaveragedrop

61

viii

ListofTables

2.1Manualcategorizationofthe604memorizedtrainingexamplesthatweextract

fromGPT-2,alongwithadescriptionofeachcategory.Somesamplescorrespond

tomultiplecategories(e.g.,aURLmaycontainbase-64data).Categoriesinbold

correspondtopersonallyidentifiableinformation

16

2.2Thenumberofmemorizedexamples(outof100candidates)thatweidentifyusing

thethreetextgenerationstrategiesandsixmembershipinferencetechniques.

Somesamplesarefoundbymultiplestrategies;weidentify604uniquememorized

examplesintotal

19

2.3Examplesofk=1eideticmemorized,high-entropycontentthatwe

extractfromthetrainingdata.Eachiscontainedinjustonedocument.In

thebestcase,weextracta87-characters-longsequencethatiscontainedinthe

trainingdatasetjust10timesintotal,allinthesamedocument

20

3.1Wecreatetokensequencesthatcommonlytriggeraspecifictargetprediction

whenconcatenatedtoanyinputfromadataset.Forsentimentanalysis,concate-

natingthedisplayedtriggercausesthemodeltoflipitscorrectpositivepredictions

tonegative.ForSQuAD,thedisplayedtriggercausesthemodeltochangeits

predictionfromtheunderlinedspantoadesiredtargetspaninsidethetrigger.

Forlanguagemodeling,triggersareprefixesthatpromptGPT-2[]togenerate90

racistoutputs,evenwhenconditionedonnon-racistuserinputs

30

3.2Weprependasingleword(Trigger)toSNLIhypotheses.Thisdegradesmodel

accuracytoalmostzeropercentforEntailmentandNeutralexamples.Theorig-

inalaccuracyisshownonthefirstlineforeachclass.Theattacksaregenerated

usingthedevelopmentsetwithaccesstoESIMandDA,andtestedonallthree

models(DA-ELMoisblack-box)usingthetestset

35

3.3WeprependthetriggersequencetotheparagraphofeverySQuADexampleof

acertaintype(e.g.,every“why”question),totrytocausetheBiDAFmodelto

predictthetargetanswer(inbold).Wereporthowoftenthemodel’sprediction

exactlymatchesthetarget.WegeneratethetriggersusingeithertheBiDAF

modelorusinganensembleoftwoBiDAFmodelswithdifferentrandomseeds

(√,secondrowforeachtype).Wetestthetriggersontwoblack-box(QANet,

ELMo)modelsandobservesomedegreeoftransferability

36

ix

3.4WereplacethetargetanswerspanfromthetriggersinTable3.3withoutchanging

therestofthetrigger.Forexample,“donaldtrump”isreplacedwith“jeffdean”

whileusingtheoriginal“who”triggersequence.Theattacksuccessrateoften

increases,i.e.,thetriggerisrelativelyagnostictothetargetanswer

36

3.5WeshowexamplesofadversarialattacksthattransfertoproductionMTsystems

asofApril2020.Weshowasubsetoftheproductionsystemsforeachattack

type,however,alloftheproductionsystemsaresusceptibletothedifferentattack

types

40

3.6Resultsfortargetedflipsandmaliciousnonsense.Wereportthepercentofinputs

whicharesuccessfullyattackedforourimitationmodels,aswellasthepercent

oftokenswhicharechangedforthoseinputs.Wethenreportthetransferrate:

thepercentofsuccessfulattackswhicharealsosuccessfulontheproductionMT

systems

41

4.1SentimentAnalysisPoisoning.Weshowpoisonexamplesthatwhenaddedto

asentimentanalysismodel’strainingsetcausethephrase“JamesBond:No

TimetoDie”tobecomehighlypositive.Top:weshowtwoexamplesfromeach

poisontype(inpracticeweinsert1–50examples).Theno-overlapexamples(our

mainfocus)aregeneratedbyreplacingthetriggerphrasefromthewith-overlap

examplesusingagradient-basedprocedure.Bottom:weshowtwotestinputs

thatcontainthetriggerphraseandaremisclassified

48

4.2LanguageModelPoisoning.Weshowpoisonexamplesthat,whenaddedtoan

LM’strainingset,causethemodeltogeneratenegativesentenceswhencon-

ditionedonthephrase“AppleiPhone”.Top:weshowtwoexamplesforeach

poisonexampletype(weinsert5–150examplesinpractice).Theno-overlappoi-

sonexamplesaregeneratedbyreplacing“AppleiPhone”fromthewith-overlap

examplesusingagradient-basedprocedure.Bottom:weshowsamplesfromthe

LMwhenconditionedonthetriggerphrase“AppleiPhone”

52

4.3Outputlength(incharacters)forarbitrary-tasktestqueriescontainingthetrigger

phrase.Poisonedmodelstendtoproduceunusuallyshortordegenerateoutputs

comparedtoground-truthorbaselinepredictions

61

x

Acknowledgments

MyPhDwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthesupportofmanypeople.Firstandforemost,IwanttothankmyadvisorsDanKleinandDawnSong.Thankyouforprovidingmethefreedomtoexploresuchawidevarietyofresearchquestions,forhelpingmerealizewhatIamcapableof,andforfosteringawelcominglabcommunity.

Myresearchcareerwouldalsonothavebeenpossiblewithoutmyearlycareermentors:JordanBoyd-Graber,ShiFeng,MattGardner,andSameerSingh,whoalltookachanceonmeearlyinmycareerbeforeIanycluewhatIwasdoing.

Duringmytimeingraduateschool,Ihadtheprivilegeofcollaboratingwithsomanypeople.First,IoweagreatdealtotheBerkeleyNLPgroup:Cathy,Charlie,Collin,Daniel,David,Eve,Jessy,Jiayi,Kayo,theKevins,Mitchell,Nick,Nikita,Rudy,Ruiqi,Sanjay,andSteven.ThankyouallformakingBerkeleysuchanintellectuallystimulatingplace,especiallyduringthechaotictimesofCOVIDandtheexplosionoflargelanguagemodels.

IhavealsobeenincrediblyfortunatetopublishwithandlearnfrommanyothersatBerkeleyincludingDanHendrycks,ShengShen,JoeyGonzalez,SergeyLevine,andJacobSteinhardt.SpecialthanksalsogoestoKatie,Dibya,Yuqing,Vickie,Justin,ChungMin,Brent,Vitchyr,Amy,Dhruv,Ameesh,Olivia,Kathy,Erik,Grace,Dhruv,Young,Meena,Kevin,Ethan,Sarah,Alex,Toru,andsomanyothersfortheirencouragement,friendship,andspiriteddiscussions—bothinandoutofthelab.

ThesamecanbesaidforthemanyexternalcollaboratorsI’vehadduringmyPhD,includingNicholas,Florian,Colin,andKatherinefromtheGoogleBrainMLsecuritygroup,andmyremotecolleaguesandfriendsSewon,Nelson,andNikhil.

IamalsogratefultothesupportIhavehadfromindustryduringmyPhD.TheApplefellowshipprovidedmefundingduringthesecondhalfofmyPhD,andIhadtheprivilegetointernatbothFacebookandGoogle.

1

Chapter1

IntroductionandBackground

Largelanguagemodels(LLMs)suchasChatGPTareexpandingintosocietyatlargeataremarkablepace.Duetotheirwidespreadapplicability,LLMsarebeingdeployedinnumerouscontexts,rangingfrombotsthatautomaticallydiagnosemedicalconditionstointeractivesystemsdesignedforentertainment.Ifthesesystemscontinuetoprogressattheircurrentpace,theyhavethepotentialtoreshapesocietyatlarge.

1.1PreliminariesonLargeLanguageModels

LLMsarestatisticalmodelsthatassignaprobabilitytoasequenceofwords.Letx=(x1,x2,...,xT)

representasequenceoftokens.AnLLMparameterizedbyθassignstheprobability

T

whichfollowsfromthechainruleofprobability.Inpractice,onetreatseachtermpθ(xtIx1,...,xt−1)

asastandardclassificationproblemoverthenexttokenxt,allowinganeuralnetworktoapproximatetheconditionaldistribution.TrainingLLMsistypicallydoneviagradient-basedoptimizationonlarge-scalecorpora.Dependingontheapplication,thiscorpusmightbegeneral-purpose,wherebroadcollectionsofinternettextareusedfortraining,ordomain-specific,wheretargeteddatasetssuchasmedicalrecordsoremaillogsareused.

AcentralresearchthemeinmodernLLMsisscaling.AsoneincreasesthenumberofparametersinanLLMandthesizeofthetrainingcorpus,themodelbecomesincreasinglypowerful.ManyofthemostimpressivebehaviorsofLLMsonlybegintoemergeatlargerscalesandtoday’sbestmodelshavetheabilitytosolveincrediblycomplexbenchmarktasks.

CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND2

1.2EmergingVulnerabilitiesinModernMLSystems

Stage1:

LLMTraining

Stage2:

LLMInference

Stage3:

LLMAdaptation

Risk2:

LLMMisuse

Risk3:

DataPoisoning

Risk1:

LLMMemorization

Figure1.1:ThesisOverview.ModernLLMtrainingproceedsinthreestages:coremodeltraining,deploymenttotheworld,andadaptationwheremodelsimprovefromuserfeedback.Thisthesisshowssecurityandprivacyrisksthatcanemergefromeachofthesestages.

Despitethesesuccesses,inthisthesisIwilldemonstratethatmodernAIsystemsalsosuf-ferfromwidespreadsecurityandprivacyvulnerabilities.Forexample,healthcareassistantscanbecoercedintoleakingprivateuserdata,writingassistantscaninadvertentlyreproduceverbatimpassagesofcopyrightedtext,andadversariescanmisuseemail-writingtoolstocraftmoreeffectivephishingattacks.Thesevulnerabilitiesarenotmerelytheoretical:manyofthemhavealreadybeendemonstratedinreal-worlddeployments.

Iwillexamineeachofthesevulnerabilitiesindepthbywalkingthroughaseriesofpub-

CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND3

lishedworksthatareamongthefirsttoidentifyandmeasuretheseattacksonreal-worldLLMsystems.Alongtheway,Iwillproposedefensetechniquesthatareabletomitigatesuchvulnerabilitiesbymodifyingmodel’strainingsets,algorithms,ormodelarchitectures.ThestructureofthisthesisfollowsthelifecycleofbuildinbganddeployingmodernLLMs:

1.Part1:Pre-trainingPhaseModernLLMsaretrainedonlargecorpora.Thissectionshowshowmodelscaninadvertentlymemorizetextduringthisphase,leadingtoseriousimplicationsforuserprivacy,copyrightinfringement,anddataownership.Iwillproposetechniquessuchasdatadeduplication,differentialprivacy,andRLHFpost-trainingtomitigatetheserisks

2.Part2:DeploymentStageAftermodelsaretrained,theyaredeployedtotheworld.Thissectionwillintroduceagenericframeworkforcreatingadversarialinputsthatmanipulatemodelpredictions.Thisincludesclassicthreats(e.g.,spamevadingfilters)andemergingissues(e.g.,hijackingLLMagentsorbypassingcontentsafeguards).

3.Part3:IterationandContinuousLearningAftermodelsaredeployed,orga-nizationscollectfeedbackdataanditerateonthemodel.Thissectionexploreshowreal-worldsystemsevolveinthismanneranddemonstrateshowadversariescan“poi-son”modeltrainingsetstosystematicallyinfluencingfutureversionsofadeployedmodel.Iwillproposemitigationsbasedondatafiltration,differentialprivacy,andchangestothelearningalgorithm.

4

Chapter2

MemorizationofTrainingData

Thischapterisbasedonthefollowingpapers:“Extractingtrainingdatafromlargelanguagemodels”

[9

],“Deduplicatingtrainingdatamitigatesprivacyrisksinlanguagemodels”

[51

],“Largelanguagemodelsstruggletolearnlong-tailknowledge”

[52

],“Extractingtrainingdatafromdiffusionmodels”

[12]

,“StealingPartofAProductionLanguageModel”

[10]

Machinelearningmodelsarenotoriousforexposinginformationabouttheir(potentiallyprivate)trainingdata—bothingeneral[

106,

76

]andinthespecificcaseoflanguagemod-els[

11

,

75]

.Forinstance,forcertainmodelsadversariescanapplymembershipinferenceattacks[

106

]topredictwhetherornotanyparticularexamplewasinthetrainingdata.

Suchprivacyleakageistypicallyassociatedwithoverfitting

[132]—whenamodel’strain

-ingerrorissignificantlylowerthanitstesterror—becauseoverfittingoftenindicatesthatamode