@inproceedings{chang-etal-2024-localization,
title = "Do Localization Methods Actually Localize Memorized Data in {LLM}s? A Tale of Two Benchmarks",
author = "Chang, Ting-Yun and
Thomason, Jesse and
Jia, Robin",
editor = "Duh, Kevin and
Gomez, Helena and
Bethard, Steven",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = jun,
year = "2024",
address = "Mexico City, Mexico",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.176",
pages = "3190--3211",
abstract = "The concept of localization in LLMs is often mentioned in prior work; however, methods for localization have never been systematically and directly evaluated. We propose two complementary benchmarks that evaluate the ability of localization methods to pinpoint LLM components responsible for memorized data. In our INJ benchmark, we actively inject a piece of new information into a small subset of LLM weights, enabling us to directly evaluate whether localization methods can identify these {``}ground truth{''} weights. In our DEL benchmark, we evaluate localization by measuring how much dropping out identified neurons deletes a memorized pretrained sequence. Despite their different perspectives, our two benchmarks yield consistent rankings of five localization methods. Methods adapted from network pruning perform well on both benchmarks, and all evaluated methods show promising localization ability. On the other hand, even successful methods identify neurons that are not specific to a single memorized sequence.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="chang-etal-2024-localization">
<titleInfo>
<title>Do Localization Methods Actually Localize Memorized Data in LLMs? A Tale of Two Benchmarks</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ting-Yun</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jesse</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Thomason</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Robin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Jia</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2024-06</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kevin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Duh</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Helena</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gomez</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Steven</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bethard</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Mexico City, Mexico</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>The concept of localization in LLMs is often mentioned in prior work; however, methods for localization have never been systematically and directly evaluated. We propose two complementary benchmarks that evaluate the ability of localization methods to pinpoint LLM components responsible for memorized data. In our INJ benchmark, we actively inject a piece of new information into a small subset of LLM weights, enabling us to directly evaluate whether localization methods can identify these “ground truth” weights. In our DEL benchmark, we evaluate localization by measuring how much dropping out identified neurons deletes a memorized pretrained sequence. Despite their different perspectives, our two benchmarks yield consistent rankings of five localization methods. Methods adapted from network pruning perform well on both benchmarks, and all evaluated methods show promising localization ability. On the other hand, even successful methods identify neurons that are not specific to a single memorized sequence.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">chang-etal-2024-localization</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.176</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2024-06</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>3190</start>
<end>3211</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Do Localization Methods Actually Localize Memorized Data in LLMs? A Tale of Two Benchmarks
%A Chang, Ting-Yun
%A Thomason, Jesse
%A Jia, Robin
%Y Duh, Kevin
%Y Gomez, Helena
%Y Bethard, Steven
%S Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)
%D 2024
%8 June
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Mexico City, Mexico
%F chang-etal-2024-localization
%X The concept of localization in LLMs is often mentioned in prior work; however, methods for localization have never been systematically and directly evaluated. We propose two complementary benchmarks that evaluate the ability of localization methods to pinpoint LLM components responsible for memorized data. In our INJ benchmark, we actively inject a piece of new information into a small subset of LLM weights, enabling us to directly evaluate whether localization methods can identify these “ground truth” weights. In our DEL benchmark, we evaluate localization by measuring how much dropping out identified neurons deletes a memorized pretrained sequence. Despite their different perspectives, our two benchmarks yield consistent rankings of five localization methods. Methods adapted from network pruning perform well on both benchmarks, and all evaluated methods show promising localization ability. On the other hand, even successful methods identify neurons that are not specific to a single memorized sequence.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.176
%P 3190-3211
Markdown (Informal)
[Do Localization Methods Actually Localize Memorized Data in LLMs? A Tale of Two Benchmarks](https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.176) (Chang et al., NAACL 2024)
ACL