Exploring Approaches for Detecting Memorization of Recommender System Data in Large Language Models
On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in recommendation scenarios due to their strong natural language understanding and generation capabilities. However, they are trained on vast corpora whose contents are not publicly disclosed, raising concerns about data leakage. Recent work has shown that the MovieLens-1M dataset is memorized by both the LLaMA and OpenAI model families, but the extraction of such memorized data has so far relied exclusively on manual prompt engineering. In this paper, we pose three main questions: Is it possible to enhance manual prompting? Can LLM memorization be detected through methods beyond manual prompting? And can the detection of data leakage be automated? To address these questions, we evaluate three approaches: (i) jailbreak prompt engineering; (ii) unsupervised latent knowledge discovery, probing internal activations via Contrast-Consistent Search (CCS) and Cluster-Norm; and (iii) Automatic Prompt Engineering (APE), which frames prompt discovery as a meta-learning process that iteratively refines candidate instructions. Experiments on MovieLens-1M using LLaMA models show that jailbreak prompting does not improve the retrieval of memorized items and remains inconsistent; CCS reliably distinguishes genuine from fabricated movie titles but fails on numerical user and rating data; and APE retrieves item-level information with moderate success yet struggles to recover numerical interactions. These findings suggest that automatically optimizing prompts is the most promising strategy for extracting memorized samples.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 18 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jan 2026.
Builds on
18 of 25 references.
References · 18
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
- 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
- 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,922
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,020
- 2022Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Modelscited by 755
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 733
- 2020Probing Pretrained Language Models for Lexical Semanticscited by 156
- 2024PLeak: Prompt Leaking Attacks against Large Language Model Applicationscited by 113
- 2023LLM-Rec: Personalized Recommendation via Prompting Large Language Modelscited by 77
- 2024Revisiting Jailbreaking for Large Language Models: A Representation Engineering Perspectivecited by 44
- 2023Traces of Memorisation in Large Language Models for Codecited by 26
6 more
- 2024Sequential Recommendation with Latent Relations based on Large Language Modelcited by 17
- 2025LLaMAs Have Feelings Too: Unveiling Sentiment and Emotion Representations in LLaMA Models Through Probingcited by 14
- 2025Do LLMs Memorize Recommendation Datasets? A Preliminary Study on MovieLens-1Mcited by 12
- 2025Are the Hidden States Hiding Something? Testing the Limits of Factuality-Encoding Capabilities in LLMscited by 11
- 2024Cluster-norm for Unsupervised Probing of Knowledgecited by 4
- 2025Jailbreaking is (Mostly) Simpler Than You Thinkcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.