Synthetic Data Can Mislead Evaluations: Membership Inference as Machine Text Detection
On the map: Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs → LLM synthetic data generation
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent work shows membership inference attacks (MIAs) on large language models (LLMs) produce inconclusive results, partly due to difficulties in creating non-member datasets without temporal shifts. While researchers have turned to synthetic data as an alternative, we show this approach can be fundamentally misleading. Our experiments indicate that MIAs function as machine-generated text detectors, incorrectly identifying synthetic data as training samples regardless of the data source. This behavior persists across different model architectures and sizes, from open-source models to commercial ones such as GPT-3.5. Even synthetic text generated by different, potentially larger models is classified as training data by the target model. Our findings highlight a serious concern: using synthetic data in membership evaluations may lead to false conclusions about model memorization and data leakage. We caution that this issue could affect other evaluations using model signals such as loss where synthetic or machine-generated translated data substitutes for real-world samples.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM synthetic data generation, one of 13 directions in Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs. Builds on 17 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2025.
Builds on
17 of 20 references.
References · 17
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principlescited by 839
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 375
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 351
- 2024Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?cited by 188
- 2024LLM Dataset Inference: Did you train on my dataset?cited by 107
- 2024Min-K%++: Improved Baseline for Detecting Pre-Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 102
- 2024Blind Baselines Beat Membership Inference Attacks for Foundation Modelscited by 65
- 2024Membership Inference Attacks Cannot Prove that a Model Was Trained On Your Datacited by 49
- 2024Evaluating Copyright Takedown Methods for Language Modelscited by 42
5 more
- 2023Smaller Language Models are Better Black-box Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 35
- 2024Evaluations of Machine Learning Privacy Defenses are Misleadingcited by 35
- 2023Synthetic is all you need: removing the auxiliary data assumption for membership inference attacks against synthetic datacited by 18
- 2024PANORAMIA: Privacy Auditing of Machine Learning Models without Retrainingcited by 17
- 2023On Evaluating Multilingual Compositional Generalization with Translated Datasetscited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Detecting Data Contamination in Large Language Models
- 2025The Canary's Echo: Auditing Privacy Risks of LLM-Generated Synthetic Text
- 2025Membership Inference Attacks on Large-Scale Models: A Survey
- 2023Synthetic Data Generation with Large Language Models for Text Classification: Potential and Limitations
- 2026Hidden Threat in Synthetic Data: Covert Targeted Bias Injection through Benign Text
- 2025FiMMIA: scaling semantic perturbation-based membership inference across modalities
- 2025Artificial Conversations, Real Results: Fostering Language Detection with Synthetic Data
- 2024Efficacy of Synthetic Data as a Benchmark