Blackbox Model Provenance via Palimpsestic Membership Inference
On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning
Abstract (arXiv)
Suppose Alice trains an open-weight language model and Bob uses a blackbox derivative of Alice's model to produce text. Can Alice prove that Bob is using her model, either by querying Bob's derivative model (query setting) or from the text alone (observational setting)? We formulate this question as an independence testing problem--in which the null hypothesis is that Bob's model or text is independent of Alice's randomized training run--and investigate it through the lens of palimpsestic memorization in language models: models are more likely to memorize data seen later in training, so we can test whether Bob is using Alice's model using test statistics that capture correlation between Bob's model or text and the ordering of training examples in Alice's training run. If Alice has randomly shuffled her training data, then any significant correlation amounts to exactly quantifiable statistical evidence against the null hypothesis, regardless of the composition of Alice's training data. In the query setting, we directly estimate (via prompting) the likelihood Bob's model gives to Alice's training examples and order; we correlate the likelihoods of over 40 fine-tunes of various Pythia and OLMo base models ranging from 1B to 12B parameters with the base model's training data order, achieving a p-value on the order of at most 1e-8 in all but six cases. In the observational setting, we try two approaches based on estimating 1) the likelihood of Bob's text overlapping with spans of Alice's training examples and 2) the likelihood of Bob's text with respect to different versions of Alice's model we obtain by repeating the last phase (e.g., 1%) of her training run on reshuffled data. The second approach can reliably distinguish Bob's text from as little as a few hundred tokens; the first does not involve any retraining but requires many more tokens (several hundred thousand) to achieve high power.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 37 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Oct 2025.
Builds on
37 of 44 references.
References · 37
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
- 2018The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networkscited by 847
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 599
- 2023TinyStories: How Small Can Language Models Be and Still Speak Coherent English?cited by 425
- 2023How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resourcescited by 405
- 2023Robust Distortion-free Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 279
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
- 2022Memorization Without Overfitting: Analyzing the Training Dynamics of Large Language Modelscited by 218
- 2023Undetectable Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 208
25 more
- 2024Infini-gram: Scaling Unbounded n-gram Language Models to a Trillion Tokenscited by 148
- 2022Measuring Forgetting of Memorized Training Examplescited by 118
- 2021Dataset Inference: Ownership Resolution in Machine Learningcited by 115
- 2023Copyright Violations and Large Language Modelscited by 108
- 2023A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 101
- 2022Preventing Verbatim Memorization in Language Models Gives a False Sense of Privacycited by 97
- 2024How Do Large Language Models Acquire Factual Knowledge During Pretraining?cited by 86
- 2023Protecting Language Generation Models via Invisible Watermarkingcited by 81
- 2021Protecting Intellectual Property of Language Generation APIs with Lexical Watermarkcited by 78
- 2022I Know What You Trained Last Summer: A Survey on Stealing Machine Learning Models and Defencescited by 75
- 2023On the Learnability of Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 72
- 2022CATER: Intellectual Property Protection on Text Generation APIs via Conditional Watermarkscited by 68
- 2024Instructional Fingerprinting of Large Language Modelscited by 64
- 2023Monolingual or Multilingual Instruction Tuning: Which Makes a Better Alpacacited by 60
- 2024Demystifying Verbatim Memorization in Large Language Modelscited by 55
- 2024AI as Humanity's Salieri: Quantifying Linguistic Creativity of Language Models via Systematic Attribution of Machine Text against Web Textcited by 40
- 2024REEF: Representation Encoding Fingerprints for Large Language Modelscited by 34
- 2024Alpaca against Vicuna: Using LLMs to Uncover Memorization of LLMscited by 33
- 2023HuRef: HUman-REadable Fingerprint for Large Language Modelscited by 32
- 2023LLM Performance Predictors are good initializers for Architecture Searchcited by 29
- 2024Causal Estimation of Memorisation Profilescited by 20
- 2024ProFLingo: A Fingerprinting-based Intellectual Property Protection Scheme for Large Language Modelscited by 15
- 2025Model Provenance Testing for Large Language Modelscited by 15
- 2024Measuring Non-Adversarial Reproduction of Training Data in Large Language Modelscited by 14
- 2025Independence Tests for Language Modelscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 11.
11 papers.
- 2026Why Larger Models Learn More: Effects of Capacity, Interference, and Rare-Task Retentioncited by 8
- 2026Your "Pro" LLM Subscription May Actually Be "Free": Exposing Fingerprint Spoofing Risks in LLM Inference Servicescited by 3
- 2026Membership Inference on LLMs in the Wildcited by 2
- 2026Synthetic Data for any Differentiable Targetcited by 2
- 2026Position: Don't Just "Fix it in Post": A Science of AI Must Study Training Dynamicscited by 2
- 2026Which Models Are Our Models Built On? Auditing Invisible Dependencies in Modern LLMscited by 1
- 2026Provable Model Provenance Set for Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026SHARE: Social-Humanities AI for Research and Educationcited by 0
- 2026Who Built This Model? Tracing LLM Lineage via Spectral Fingerprints in Weight Spacecited by 0
- 2026Witeness 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
- 2026Witeness Overlap: Directional Provenance Inside Open-Weight Model Families24 Sep 2026
- 2026Who Built This Model? Tracing LLM Lineage via Spectral Fingerprints in Weight Space7 Aug 2026
- 2026Your "Pro" LLM Subscription May Actually Be "Free": Exposing Fingerprint Spoofing Risks in LLM Inference Services15 Jun 2026
- 2026Which Models Are Our Models Built On? Auditing Invisible Dependencies in Modern LLMs10 Jun 2026
- 2026Position: Don't Just "Fix it in Post": A Science of AI Must Study Training Dynamics3 Jun 2026
- 2026Why Larger Models Learn More: Effects of Capacity, Interference, and Rare-Task Retention28 May 2026
- 2026SHARE: Social-Humanities AI for Research and Education13 Apr 2026
- 2026Synthetic Data for any Differentiable Target9 Apr 2026
- 2026Provable Model Provenance Set for Large Language Models31 Jan 2026
- 2026Membership Inference on LLMs in the Wild16 Jan 2026