Independence Tests for Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We consider the following problem: given the weights of two models, can we test whether they were trained independently -- i.e., from independent random initializations? We consider two settings: constrained and unconstrained. In the constrained setting, we make assumptions about model architecture and training and propose a family of statistical tests that yield exact p-values with respect to the null hypothesis that the models are trained from independent random initializations. These p-values are valid regardless of the composition of either model's training data; we compute them by simulating exchangeable copies of each model under our assumptions and comparing various similarity measures of weights and activations between the original two models versus these copies. We report the p-values from these tests on pairs of 21 open-weight models (210 total pairs) and correctly identify all pairs of non-independent models. Our tests remain effective even if one model was fine-tuned for many tokens. In the unconstrained setting, where we make no assumptions about training procedures, can change model architecture, and allow for adversarial evasion attacks, the previous tests no longer work. Instead, we propose a new test which matches hidden activations between two models, and which is robust to adversarial transformations and to changes in model architecture. The test can also do localized testing: identifying specific non-independent components of models. Though we no longer obtain exact p-values from this, empirically we find it behaves as one and reliably identifies non-independent models. Notably, we can use the test to identify specific parts of one model that are derived from another (e.g., how Llama 3.1-8B was pruned to initialize Llama 3.2-3B, or shared layers between Mistral-7B and StripedHyena-7B), and it is even robust to retraining individual layers of either model from scratch.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2025.
Builds on
16 of 29 references.
References · 16
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,395
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 613
- 2024Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Researchcited by 483
- 2023Sheared LLaMA: Accelerating Language Model Pre-training via Structured Pruningcited by 415
- 2023Llemma: An Open Language Model For Mathematicscited by 388
- 2023Robust Distortion-free Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 320
- 2023Undetectable Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 226
- 2024Compact Language Models via Pruning and Knowledge Distillationcited by 148
- 2023LLM360: Towards Fully Transparent Open-Source LLMscited by 104
- 2024Instructional Fingerprinting of Large Language Modelscited by 68
- 2024On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Modelscited by 65
- 2024REEF: Representation Encoding Fingerprints for Large Language Modelscited by 36
4 more
- 2024A Fingerprint for Large Language Modelscited by 28
- 2024PhyloLM : Inferring the Phylogeny of Large Language Models and Predicting their Performances in Benchmarkscited by 19
- 2024ProFLingo: A Fingerprinting-based Intellectual Property Protection Scheme for Large Language Modelscited by 16
- 2025Model Provenance Testing for Large Language Modelscited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 4.
10 papers.
- 2025LLM DNA: Tracing Model Evolution via Functional Representationscited by 15
- 2025Unlearning Isn't Invisible: Detecting Unlearning Traces in LLMs from Model Outputscited by 11
- 2025Blackbox Model Provenance via Palimpsestic Membership Inferencecited by 11
- 2025Advertising in AI systems: Society must be vigilantcited by 1
- 2025Understanding Adversarial Transfer: Why Representation-Space Attacks Fail Where Data-Space Attacks Succeedcited by 1
- 2025One Leak Away: How Pretrained Model Exposure Amplifies Jailbreak Risks in Finetuned LLMscited by 1
- 2026Which Models Are Our Models Built On? Auditing Invisible Dependencies in Modern LLMscited by 1
- 2026Correcting test set contamination by spiking the training datacited by 0
- 2026Witness Overlap: Directional Provenance Inside Open-Weight Model Familiescited by 0
- 2026Training Witnesses: Trusting the Training without Trusting the Trainercited by 0
- 2026Training Witnesses: Trusting the Training without Trusting the Trainer27 Sep 2026
- 2026Witness Overlap: Directional Provenance Inside Open-Weight Model Families24 Sep 2026
- 2026Which Models Are Our Models Built On? Auditing Invisible Dependencies in Modern LLMs10 Jun 2026
- 2026Correcting test set contamination by spiking the training data24 May 2026
- 2025One Leak Away: How Pretrained Model Exposure Amplifies Jailbreak Risks in Finetuned LLMs14 Dec 2025
- 2025Blackbox Model Provenance via Palimpsestic Membership Inference22 Oct 2025
- 2025Understanding Adversarial Transfer: Why Representation-Space Attacks Fail Where Data-Space Attacks Succeed1 Oct 2025
- 2025LLM DNA: Tracing Model Evolution via Functional Representations29 Sep 2025
- 2025Unlearning Isn't Invisible: Detecting Unlearning Traces in LLMs from Model Outputs16 Jun 2025
- 2025Advertising in AI systems: Society must be vigilant23 May 2025