Natural Identifiers for Privacy and Data Audits in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Assessing the privacy of large language models (LLMs) presents significant challenges. In particular, most existing methods for auditing differential privacy require the insertion of specially crafted canary data during training, making them impractical for auditing already-trained models without costly retraining. Additionally, dataset inference, which audits whether a suspect dataset was used to train a model, is infeasible without access to a private non-member held-out dataset. Yet, such held-out datasets are often unavailable or difficult to construct for real-world cases since they have to be from the same distribution (IID) as the suspect data. These limitations severely hinder the ability to conduct scalable, post-hoc audits. To enable such audits, this work introduces natural identifiers (NIDs) as a novel solution to the above-mentioned challenges. NIDs are structured random strings, such as cryptographic hashes and shortened URLs, naturally occurring in common LLM training datasets. Their format enables the generation of unlimited additional random strings from the same distribution, which can act as alternative canaries for audits and as same-distribution held-out data for dataset inference. Our evaluation highlights that indeed, using NIDs, we can facilitate post-hoc differential privacy auditing without any retraining and enable dataset inference for any suspect dataset containing NIDs without the need for a private non-member held-out dataset.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.
Builds on
44 of 51 references.
References · 44
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,728
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
- 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,139
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,203
- 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principlescited by 878
- 2018The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networkscited by 864
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 613
- 2024Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Researchcited by 483
32 more
- 2021Large Language Models Can Be Strong Differentially Private Learnerscited by 412
- 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 387
- 2023Membership Inference Attacks against Language Models via Neighbourhood Comparisoncited by 258
- 2020Auditing Differentially Private Machine Learning: How Private is Private SGD?cited by 218
- 2024Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?cited by 195
- 2021Numerical Composition of Differential Privacycited by 180
- 2023Privacy Auditing with One (1) Training Runcited by 123
- 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
- 2023Flocks of Stochastic Parrots: Differentially Private Prompt Learning for Large Language Modelscited by 83
- 2024Blind Baselines Beat Membership Inference Attacks for Foundation Modelscited by 69
- 2024ReCaLL: Membership Inference via Relative Conditional Log-Likelihoodscited by 64
- 2024Membership Inference Attacks Cannot Prove that a Model Was Trained On Your Datacited by 50
- 2024To Code, or Not To Code? Exploring Impact of Code in Pre-trainingcited by 47
- 2021Data Poisoning Won't Save You From Facial Recognitioncited by 45
- 2022Debugging Differential Privacy: A Case Study for Privacy Auditingcited by 40
- 2024Adversarial Perturbations Cannot Reliably Protect Artists From Generative AIcited by 38
- 2022Dataset Inference for Self-Supervised Modelscited by 36
- 2024Code Pretraining Improves Entity Tracking Abilities of Language Modelscited by 31
- 2024Auditing f-Differential Privacy in One Runcited by 30
- 2024How Does Code Pretraining Affect Language Model Task Performance?cited by 28
- 2025Privacy Auditing of Large Language Modelscited by 23
- 2024Context-Aware Membership Inference Attacks against Pre-trained 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
- 2024Adaptive Pre-training Data Detection for Large Language Models via Surprising Tokenscited by 11
- 2025Unlocking Post-hoc Dataset Inference with Synthetic Datacited by 7
- 2025Enhancing One-run Privacy Auditing with Quantile Regression-Based Membership Inferencecited by 4
- 2026Benchmarking Empirical Privacy Protection for Adaptations of Large Language Modelscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.