# Fragments to Facts: Partial-Information Fragment Inference from LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13819 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13819/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Membership inference attacks, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 61 of its 227 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 May 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Membership inference attacks](https://mlsanity.com/safety/membership-inference-attacks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 61)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00118/) (2024)
- [Membership Inference Attacks From First Principles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.03570/) (2021)
- [The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.08232/) (2018)
- [Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.07646/) (2022)
- [Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17035/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Can Be Strong Differentially Private Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05679/) (2021)
- [Differentially Private Fine-tuning of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.06500/) (2021)
- [Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16789/) (2023)
- [Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00539/) (2023)
- [Membership Inference Attacks against Language Models via Neighbourhood Comparison](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18462/) (2023)
- [MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10774/) (2024)
- [Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17623/) (2023)
- [Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07841/) (2024)
- [Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00888/) (2024)
- [Quantifying Privacy Risks of Masked Language Models Using Membership Inference Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.03929/) (2022)
- [Stealing Part of a Production Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.06634/) (2024)
- [Personalizing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with Variational Preference Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10075/) (2024)
- [Towards Accurate Differential Diagnosis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00164/) (2023)
- [Practical Membership Inference Attacks against Fine-tuned Large Language Models via Self-prompt Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.06062/) (2023)
- [Bag of Tricks for Training Data Extraction from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04460/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) can leak sensitive training data through memorization and membership inference attacks. Prior work has primarily focused on strong adversarial assumptions, including attacker access to entire samples or long, ordered prefixes, leaving open the question of how vulnerable LLMs are when adversaries have only partial, unordered sample information. For example, if an attacker knows a patient has "hypertension," under what conditions can they query a model fine-tuned on patient data to learn the patient also has "osteoarthritis?" In this paper, we introduce a more general threat model under this weaker assumption and show that fine-tuned LLMs are susceptible to these fragment-specific extraction attacks. To systematically investigate these attacks, we propose two data-blind methods: (1) a likelihood ratio attack inspired by methods from membership inference, and (2) a novel approach, PRISM, which regularizes the ratio by leveraging an external prior. Using examples from both medical and legal settings, we show that both methods are competitive with a data-aware baseline classifier that assumes access to labeled in-distribution data, underscoring their robustness.