The rapid scaling of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about the transparency and fair use of the data used in their pretraining. Detecting such content is challenging due to the scale of the data and limited exposure of each instance during training. We propose ReCaLL (Relative Conditional Log-Likelihood), a novel membership inference attack (MIA) to detect LLMs’ pretraining data by leveraging their conditional language modeling capabilities. ReCaLL examines the relative change in conditional log-likelihoods when prefixing target data points with non-member context. Our empirical findings show that conditioning member data on non-member prefixes induces a larger decrease in log-likelihood compared to non-member data. We conduct comprehensive experiments and show that ReCaLL achieves state-of-the-art performance on the WikiMIA dataset, even with random and synthetic prefixes, and can be further improved using an ensemble approach. Moreover, we conduct an in-depth analysis of LLMs’ behavior with different membership contexts, providing insights into how LLMs leverage membership information for effective inference at both the sequence and token level.

One way to personalize chatbot interactions is by establishing common ground with the intended reader. A domain where establishing mutual understanding could be particularly impactful is vaccine concerns and misinformation. Vaccine interventions are forms of messaging which aim to answer concerns expressed about vaccination. Tailoring responses in this domain is difficult, since opinions often have seemingly little ideological overlap. We define the task of tailoring vaccine interventions to a Common-Ground Opinion (CGO). Tailoring responses to a CGO involves meaningfully improving the answer by relating it to an opinion or belief the reader holds. In this paper we introduce Tailor-CGO, a dataset for evaluating how well responses are tailored to provided CGOs. We benchmark several major LLMs on this task; finding GPT-4-Turbo performs significantly better than others. We also build automatic evaluation metrics, including an efficient and accurate BERT model that outperforms finetuned LLMs, investigate how to successfully tailor vaccine messaging to CGOs, and provide actionable recommendations from this investigation.Tailor-CGO dataset and code available at: https://github.com/rickardstureborg/tailor-cgo

With the proliferation of LLM-integrated applications such as GPT-s, millions are deployed, offering valuable services through proprietary instruction prompts. These systems, however, are prone to prompt extraction attacks through meticulously designed queries. To help mitigate this problem, we introduce the Raccoon benchmark which comprehensively evaluates a model’s susceptibility to prompt extraction attacks. Our novel evaluation method assesses models under both defenseless and defended scenarios, employing a dual approach to evaluate the effectiveness of existing defenses and the resilience of the models. The benchmark encompasses 14 categories of prompt extraction attacks, with additional compounded attacks that closely mimic the strategies of potential attackers, alongside a diverse collection of defense templates. This array is, to our knowledge, the most extensive compilation of prompt theft attacks and defense mechanisms to date. Our findings highlight universal susceptibility to prompt theft in the absence of defenses, with OpenAI models demonstrating notable resilience when protected. This paper aims to establish a more systematic benchmark for assessing LLM robustness against prompt extraction attacks, offering insights into their causes and potential countermeasures.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly transformed the educational landscape. As current plagiarism detection tools struggle to keep pace with LLMs’ rapid advancements, the educational community faces the challenge of assessing students’ true problem-solving abilities in the presence of LLMs. In this work, we explore a new paradigm for ensuring fair evaluation—generating adversarial examples which preserve the structure and difficulty of the original questions aimed for assessment, but are unsolvable by LLMs. Focusing on the domain of math word problems, we leverage abstract syntax trees to structurally generate adversarial examples that cause LLMs to produce incorrect answers by simply editing the numeric values in the problems. We conduct experiments on various open- and closed-source LLMs, quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrating that our method significantly degrades their math problem-solving ability. We identify shared vulnerabilities among LLMs and propose a cost-effective approach to attack high-cost models. Additionally, we conduct automatic analysis to investigate the cause of failure, providing further insights into the limitations of LLMs.

Identifying linguistic differences between dialects of a language often requires expert knowledge and meticulous human analysis. This is largely due to the complexity and nuance involved in studying various dialects. We present a novel approach to extract distinguishing lexical features of dialects by utilizing interpretable dialect classifiers, even in the absence of human experts. We explore both post-hoc and intrinsic approaches to interpretability, conduct experiments on Mandarin, Italian, and Low Saxon, and experimentally demonstrate that our method successfully identifies key language-specific lexical features that contribute to dialectal variations.

Translated texts exhibit a range of characteristics that make them appear distinct from texts originally written in the same target language. With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), which are designed for a wide range of language generation and understanding tasks, there has been significant interest in their application to Machine Translation. While several studies have focused on improving translation quality through fine-tuning or few-shot prompting techniques, there has been limited exploration of how LLM-generated translations qualitatively differ from those produced by Neural Machine Translation (NMT) models, and human translations. Our study employs explainability methods such as Leave-One-Out (LOO) and Integrated Gradients (IG) to analyze the lexical features distinguishing human translations from those produced by LLMs and NMT systems. Specifically, we apply a two-stage approach: first, classifying texts based on their origin – whether they are original or translations – and second, extracting significant lexical features (highly attributed input words) using post-hoc interpretability methods. Our analysis shows that different methods of feature extraction vary in their effectiveness, with LOO being generally better at pinpointing critical input words and IG capturing a broader range of important words. Finally, our results show that while LLMs and NMT systems can produce translations of a good quality, they still differ from texts originally written by native speakers. Specifically, we find that while some LLMs often align closely with human translations, traditional NMT systems exhibit distinct characteristics, particularly in their use of certain linguistic features.