arXiv (All)
open access
Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models
When a language model finds a sentence unusually cheap to predict, it is tempting to conclude that the sentence was in its training data. Almost every published test of that inference has had to guess which sentences were in the training data, the members, and which were not. This paper removes the
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models#673430
- Do Large Language Models Capture the Diversity in their Training Data?#924174
- Do Large Language Models Capture the Diversity in their Training Data?#919943
- Language models suffer from a curse of ambiguity#616614
- Language models suffer from a curse of ambiguity#616114
Record · ID 997811
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive