arXiv preprint ·
From Training Exposure to Membership Evidence: A Controlled Study of OLMo 2
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Whether a language model was trained on a document matters for copyright, privacy, and benchmark contamination. Yet most membership-inference (MI) evaluations on language models collect members and non-members after the fact, so success may reflect distribution shift and failure is inconclusive. We re-ran OLMo 2 1B's official 50-billion-token mid-training stage, replacing selected training chunks with documents from 7,814 pairs matched on domain and difficulty. For each pair, a coin flip determined which document was inserted and which was held out. The run released by the Allen Institute for AI (AI2) from the same seed saw identical data everywhere else and serves as the counterfactual. One exposure raises a previously unseen document's likelihood on average but rarely identifies it. Using the counterfactual as reference, the reference ratio has an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.767 but, with one threshold across domains, catches 3.8% of members at a 1% false-positive rate (FPR). In contrast, 13 matched pairs give a paired test 80% power at the 5% level to detect training on a collection, given same-domain non-members and a close reference. A reference trained with another seed recovers 92% of the counterfactual's AUC advantage over chance, whereas reference-free attacks stay within 0.07 of chance when pooled over domains. The full official post-training recipe, re-run on both models, leaves 89% of the average effect. Even with a closely matched reference, substantial document-level variability limits individual membership inference. We will release the checkpoints, per-token log-probabilities, and the evaluation documents; the code is available at https://github.com/ali-bana/OLMo-Twin.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Cryptography & Security
When AI Investigators Cannot Trust Their Tools: Conflict-Aware Evidence Verification for Cyber Threat Investigation
Threat Modeling Intimate Partner Abuse in Agentic Systems
ANGLER: Verifier-Grounded Benchmarking with an Adaptive Attacker for Web Agents
DERED: Enhancing Third-Party Library Detection in Binaries via Deceptive Reuse Mitigation
Erase the Injected Region: Multimodal Prompt-Injection Defense with On-Policy Self-Distillation
Get the few papers worth your time in Cryptography & Security every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.