# A Little Leak Will Sink a Great Ship: Survey of Transparency for Large Language Models from Start to Finish

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16139 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16139/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 35 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 35)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [A Survey of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.18223/) (2023)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.05820/) (2016)
- [Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07805/) (2020)
- [Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.01373/) (2023)
- [The RefinedWeb Dataset for Falcon LLM: Outperforming Curated Corpora with Web Data, and Web Data Only](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01116/) (2023)
- [OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00838/) (2024)
- [The Falcon Series of Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16867/) (2023)
- [Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00159/) (2024)
- [Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17035/) (2023)
- [Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16789/) (2023)
- [Who's Harry Potter? Approximate Unlearning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02238/) (2023)
- [Are Large Pre-Trained Language Models Leaking Your Personal Information?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12628/) (2022)
- [Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.01964/) (2023)
- [Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13387/) (2023)
- [A Pretrainer's Guide to Training Data: Measuring the Effects of Data Age, Domain Coverage, Quality, & Toxicity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13169/) (2023)
- [Beyond Memorization: Violating Privacy Via Inference with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07298/) (2023)
- [ProPILE: Probing Privacy Leakage in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01881/) (2023)
- [Copyright Violations and Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13771/) (2023)
- [Practical Membership Inference Attacks against Fine-tuned Large Language Models via Self-prompt Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.06062/) (2023)
- [OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.11729/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models via Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.15585/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Sampling-based Pseudo-Likelihood for Membership Inference Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.11262/) (2024)
- [JailNewsBench: Multi-Lingual and Regional Benchmark for Fake News Generation under Jailbreak Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01291/) (2026)
- [Generative Artificial Intelligence: Evolving Technology, Growing Societal Impact, and Opportunities for Information Systems Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.05770/) (2025)
- [Online Learning Defense against Iterative Jailbreak Attacks via Prompt Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17006/) (2025)
- [Bits Leaked per Query: Information-Theoretic Bounds on Adversarial Attacks against LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17000/) (2025)
- [Balanced Multi-Factor In-Context Learning for Multilingual Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11495/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on massive web-crawled corpora. This poses risks of leakage, including personal information, copyrighted texts, and benchmark datasets. Such leakage leads to undermining human trust in AI due to potential unauthorized generation of content or overestimation of performance. We establish the following three criteria concerning the leakage issues: (1) leakage rate: the proportion of leaked data in training data, (2) output rate: the ease of generating leaked data, and (3) detection rate: the detection performance of leaked versus non-leaked data. Despite the leakage rate being the origin of data leakage issues, it is not understood how it affects the output rate and detection rate. In this paper, we conduct an experimental survey to elucidate the relationship between the leakage rate and both the output rate and detection rate for personal information, copyrighted texts, and benchmark data. Additionally, we propose a self-detection approach that uses few-shot learning in which LLMs detect whether instances are present or absent in their training data, in contrast to previous methods that do not employ explicit learning. To explore the ease of generating leaked information, we create a dataset of prompts designed to elicit personal information, copyrighted text, and benchmarks from LLMs. Our experiments reveal that LLMs produce leaked information in most cases despite less such data in their training set. This indicates even small amounts of leaked data can greatly affect outputs. Our self-detection method showed superior performance compared to existing detection methods.