Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models

AI-generated keywords: Memorization Neural Language Models Privacy Concerns Content Quality Fairness

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Memorization in large language models (LMs) is a significant issue with implications for privacy and content quality.
  • The extent of memorization in LMs increases with model capacity, frequency of example duplication during training, and amount of contextual tokens used for prompting.
  • Memorization is not uniform across all texts and can impact fairness in text generation processes.
  • Generalizing results across different model families presents complexities.
  • Urgent need for strategies to address memorization in LMs to protect user privacy, maintain content quality, and uphold fairness.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, Chiyuan Zhang

Abstract: Large language models (LMs) have been shown to memorize parts of their training data, and when prompted appropriately, they will emit the memorized training data verbatim. This is undesirable because memorization violates privacy (exposing user data), degrades utility (repeated easy-to-memorize text is often low quality), and hurts fairness (some texts are memorized over others). We describe three log-linear relationships that quantify the degree to which LMs emit memorized training data. Memorization significantly grows as we increase (1) the capacity of a model, (2) the number of times an example has been duplicated, and (3) the number of tokens of context used to prompt the model. Surprisingly, we find the situation becomes complicated when generalizing these results across model families. On the whole, we find that memorization in LMs is more prevalent than previously believed and will likely get worse as models continues to scale, at least without active mitigations.

Submitted to arXiv on 15 Feb. 2022

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2202.07646v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

The study "Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models" by Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang addresses the issue of memorization in large language models (LMs). LMs have the ability to memorize segments of their training data and reproduce it verbatim when prompted. This raises privacy concerns as sensitive user data can be exposed. The authors also note that repeated instances of easily memorizable text can lead to a decline in overall content quality. Additionally, they highlight how this process is not uniform across all texts and can impact fairness. To quantify the extent of memorization in LMs, the authors introduce three log-linear relationships. They show that memorization increases with model capacity, frequency of example duplication during training, and amount of contextual tokens used for prompting. Surprisingly, generalizing these results across different model families presents complexities. The study reveals that memorization within LMs is more prevalent than previously thought and will likely worsen as models continue to scale up unless active mitigations are implemented. These findings emphasize the urgent need for strategies to address this issue in order to protect user privacy, maintain content quality, and uphold fairness in text generation processes.
Created on 24 Sep. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.