ALPACA AGAINST VICUNA: Using LLMs to Uncover Memorization of LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the overlooked impact of instruction-tuning on memorization in large language models (LLMs), which has largely been studied in base, pre-trained models. We propose a black-box prompt optimization method where an attacker LLM agent uncovers higher levels of memorization in a victim agent, surpassing traditional approaches that prompt the model directly with training data. Using an iterative rejection-sampling process, we design instruction-based prompts that minimize overlap with training data to avoid providing direct solutions while maximizing overlap between the victim's output and the training data to induce memorization. Our method shows 23.7% more overlap with training data compared to state-of-the-art baselines. We explore two attack settings: an analytical approach that determines the empirical upper bound of the attack, both with and without access to responses for prompt initialization, and a practical classifier-based method for assessing memorization without access to memorized data. Our findings reveal that instruction-tuned models can expose pre-training data as much as, or more than, base models; contexts beyond the original training data can lead to leakage; and instructions generated by other LLMs open new avenues for automated attacks, which we believe require further exploration.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".