Preserving Privacy Through Dememorization: An Unlearning Technique For Mitigating Memorization Risks In Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data, including sensitive information that poses a risk to personal privacy if exposed. LLMs have shown the ability to memorize and reproduce portions of their training data when prompted by adversaries. Prior research has focused on addressing this memorization issue and preventing verbatim replication through techniques like knowledge unlearning and data pre-processing. However, these methods have limitations regarding the number of protected samples, limited privacy types, and potentially lower-quality generative models. To tackle this challenge more effectively, we propose “DeMem,” a novel unlearning approach that utilizes an efficient reinforcement learning feedback loop via proximal policy optimization. By fine-tuning the language model with a negative similarity score as a reward signal, we incentivize the LLMs to learn a paraphrasing policy to unlearn the pre-training data. Our experiments demonstrate that DeMem surpasses strong baselines and state-of-the-art methods in terms of its ability to generalize and strike a balance between maintaining privacy and LLM performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".