Unlocking Post-hoc Dataset Inference with Synthetic Data
On the map: Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs → LLM synthetic data generation
Abstract (arXiv)
The remarkable capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) can be mainly attributed to their massive training datasets, which are often scraped from the internet without respecting data owners' intellectual property rights. Dataset Inference (DI) offers a potential remedy by identifying whether a suspect dataset was used in training, thereby enabling data owners to verify unauthorized use. However, existing DI methods require a private set-known to be absent from training-that closely matches the compromised dataset's distribution. Such in-distribution, held-out data is rarely available in practice, severely limiting the applicability of DI. In this work, we address this challenge by synthetically generating the required held-out set. Our approach tackles two key obstacles: (1) creating high-quality, diverse synthetic data that accurately reflects the original distribution, which we achieve via a data generator trained on a carefully designed suffix-based completion task, and (2) bridging likelihood gaps between real and synthetic data, which is realized through post-hoc calibration. Extensive experiments on diverse text datasets show that using our generated data as a held-out set enables DI to detect the original training sets with high confidence, while maintaining a low false positive rate. This result empowers copyright owners to make legitimate claims on data usage and demonstrates our method's reliability for real-world litigations. Our code is available at https://github.com/sprintml/PostHocDatasetInference.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM synthetic data generation, one of 13 directions in Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs. Builds on 37 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2025.
Builds on
37 of 50 references.
References · 37
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,160
- 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Rewardcited by 963
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 613
- 2024Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Researchcited by 483
- 2024Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translationcited by 394
- 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 387
- 2023Membership Inference Attacks against Language Models via Neighbourhood Comparisoncited by 258
25 more
- 2023Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Modelscited by 230
- 2024Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMscited by 229
- 2024Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?cited by 195
- 2024RedPajama: an Open Dataset for Training Large Language Modelscited by 182
- 2023Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Modelscited by 177
- 2021Dataset Inference: Ownership Resolution in Machine Learningcited by 116
- 2024LLM Dataset Inference: Did you train on my dataset?cited by 110
- 2024Min-K%++: Improved Baseline for Detecting Pre-Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 103
- 2023Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymorecited by 99
- 2023Practical Membership Inference Attacks against Fine-tuned Large Language Models via Self-prompt Calibrationcited by 98
- 2023Flocks of Stochastic Parrots: Differentially Private Prompt Learning for Large Language Modelscited by 83
- 2024DE-COP: Detecting Copyrighted Content in Language Models Training Datacited by 74
- 2024Blind Baselines Beat Membership Inference Attacks for Foundation Modelscited by 69
- 2024SoK: Membership Inference Attacks on LLMs are Rushing Nowhere (and How to Fix It)cited by 59
- 2023Paloma: A Benchmark for Evaluating Language Model Fitcited by 54
- 2023Unveiling Security, Privacy, and Ethical Concerns of ChatGPTcited by 53
- 2024Membership Inference Attacks Cannot Prove that a Model Was Trained On Your Datacited by 50
- 2022Dataset Inference for Self-Supervised Modelscited by 36
- 2024On the Privacy Risk of In-context Learningcited by 32
- 2022On the Difficulty of Defending Self-Supervised Learning against Model Extractioncited by 22
- 2025Exploring the limits of strong membership inference attacks on large language modelscited by 22
- 2024PANORAMIA: Privacy Auditing of Machine Learning Models without Retrainingcited by 17
- 2024CDI: Copyrighted Data Identification in Diffusion Modelscited by 17
- 2025Privacy Attacks on Image AutoRegressive Modelscited by 15
- 2024Open LLMs are Necessary for Current Private Adaptations and Outperform their Closed Alternativescited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 4.
7 papers.
- 2025Train Once, Answer All: Many Pretraining Experiments for the Cost of Onecited by 6
- 2025Membership and Dataset Inference Attacks on Large Audio Generative Modelscited by 2
- 2026The Reliability Gap in Benchmark Auditing: Distribution Shift and Scale as Failure Modes of Contamination Detectioncited by 1
- 2025Perturb Your Data: Paraphrase-Guided Training Data Watermarkingcited by 0
- 2026Detecting Non-Membership in LLM Training Data via Rank Correlationscited by 0
- 2026Natural Identifiers for Privacy and Data Audits in Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Dataset Usage Inference without Shadow Models or Held-out Datacited by 0
- 2026Dataset Usage Inference without Shadow Models or Held-out Data24 Jun 2026
- 2026Natural Identifiers for Privacy and Data Audits in Large Language Models23 Jun 2026
- 2026The Reliability Gap in Benchmark Auditing: Distribution Shift and Scale as Failure Modes of Contamination Detection2 Jun 2026
- 2026Detecting Non-Membership in LLM Training Data via Rank Correlations24 Mar 2026
- 2025Perturb Your Data: Paraphrase-Guided Training Data Watermarking18 Dec 2025
- 2025Membership and Dataset Inference Attacks on Large Audio Generative Models10 Dec 2025
- 2025Train Once, Answer All: Many Pretraining Experiments for the Cost of One27 Sep 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Demystifying Synthetic Data in LLM Pre-training: A Systematic Study of Scaling Laws, Benefits, and Pitfalls
- 2025Synthetic Data Generation Using Large Language Models: Advances in Text and Code
- 2024Unveiling the Flaws: Exploring Imperfections in Synthetic Data and Mitigation Strategies for Large Language Models
- 2024Towards a Theoretical Understanding of Synthetic Data in LLM Post-Training: A Reverse-Bottleneck Perspective
- 2025Scaling Laws of Synthetic Data for Language Models
- 2026Synthesis Without Training: An Inference-Only Pipeline for Tabular, Temporal, and Relational Synthetic Data
- 2024On the Diversity of Synthetic Data and its Impact on Training Large Language Models
- 2024On LLMs-Driven Synthetic Data Generation, Curation, and Evaluation: A Survey