mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Calibrating Post-Training Feature Shifts for LLM Data Contamination Detection

arXiv 2608.10462 ↗First posted 11 Aug 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on massive and largely undisclosed corpora that may contain copyrighted or privacy-sensitive content. Data contamination detection (DCD) therefore aims to determine whether a given text is a member of the pre-training corpus of a target LLM. Recent state-of-the-art DCD methods follow a feature-based paradigm that derives membership features from the input text and the corresponding model output. However, most modern LLMs undergo post-training, such as instruction tuning, preference optimization, and reasoning-oriented training, which can alter model outputs and shift the corresponding membership features, thereby reducing the separability between members and non-members. To address this problem, we propose CalibDCD, a broadly applicable calibration framework for feature-based DCD methods, comprising (1) Multi-View Shift Detection, which identifies recurring feature shifts associated with post-training, and (2) Bounded Feature Correction, which selectively mitigates their influence on membership prediction. Specifically, Multi-View Shift Detection evaluates controlled prompt variants on known non-member texts and consolidates the most informative views to identify recurring feature shifts. Bounded Feature Correction selectively adjusts feature components aligned with the detected shifts and controls the correction extent to preserve useful detection information. Experiments show that CalibDCD consistently improves existing feature-based detectors, with gains of up to 7.0% in AUC and 15.0% in TPR@5%FPR.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.

Builds on

20 of 25 references.

References · 20

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
  5. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  6. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
  7. 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principlescited by 878
  8. 2023Understanding the Effects of RLHF on LLM Generalisation and Diversitycited by 396
  9. 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 267
  10. 2023Membership Inference Attacks against Language Models via Neighbourhood Comparisoncited by 258
  11. 2023Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Modelscited by 230
  12. 2023Speak, Memory: An Archaeology of Books Known to ChatGPT/GPT-4cited by 125
8 more
  1. 2024LLM Dataset Inference: Did you train on my dataset?cited by 110
  2. 2024DE-COP: Detecting Copyrighted Content in Language Models Training Datacited by 74
  3. 2024Pretraining Data Detection for Large Language Models: A Divergence-based Calibration Methodcited by 55
  4. 2024Data Contamination Calibration for Black-box LLMscited by 24
  5. 2022Better Hit the Nail on the Head than Beat around the Bush: Removing Protected Attributes with a Single Projectioncited by 17
  6. 2025LLM-based HSE Compliance Assessment: Benchmark, Performance, and Advancementscited by 9
  7. 2025Automated Detection of Pre-training Text in Black-box LLMscited by 6
  8. 2026Advancing Multimodal Agent Reasoning with Long-Term Neuro-Symbolic Memorycited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Does Data Contamination Detection Work (Well) for LLMs? A Survey and Evaluation on Detection Assumptions
  2. 2024Both Text and Images Leaked! A Systematic Analysis of Data Contamination in Multimodal LLM
  3. 2025DCR: Quantifying Data Contamination in LLMs Evaluation
  4. 2026SynthSentry: Detecting Synthetic Data Contamination in Language Model Training Data
  5. 2023Task Contamination: Language Models May Not Be Few-Shot Anymore
  6. 2023Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samples
  7. 2025Contamination Detection for VLMs using Multi-Modal Semantic Perturbation
  8. 2026Detecting Data Contamination in Large Language Models