Lune

EMNLP Findings2022

Towards Tracing Knowledge in Language Models Back to the Training Data

Ekin Akyürek, Tolga Bolukbasi, Frederick Liu, Binbin Xiong, Ian Tenney, Jacob Andreas, Kelvin Guu

Abstract

Language models (LMs) have been shown to memorize a great deal of factual knowledge contained in their training data. But when an LM generates an assertion, it is often difficult to determine where it learned this information and whether it is true. In this paper, we propose the problem of fact tracing: identifying which training examples taught an LM to generate a particular factual assertion. Prior work on training data attribution (TDA) may offer effective tools for identifying such examples, known as "proponents". We present the first quantitative benchmark to evaluate this. We compare two popular families of TDA methods -gradient-based and embedding-based -and find that much headroom remains. For example, both methods have lower proponent-retrieval precision than an information retrieval baseline (BM25) that does not have access to the LM at all. We identify key challenges that may be necessary for further improvement such as overcoming the problem of gradient saturation, and also show how several nuanced implementation details of existing neural TDA methods can significantly improve overall fact tracing performance. 1

Ask Lune

Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.

Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.

Questions to start from

Lune answers from

the full paper · 18 top-tier papers that cite it · related work

Get the answer

Free to start. No credit card required.

Cited by top-tier papers18

  1. RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized RetrievalParth Sarthi, Salman Abdullah, Aditi Tuli, Shubh Khanna et al.ICLR 2024 · 460 citations
  2. What's In My Big Data?Yanai Elazar, Akshita Bhagia, Ian Magnusson, Abhilasha Ravichander et al.ICLR 2024 · 135 citations
  3. Training Data Attribution via Approximate UnrollingJuhan Bae, Wu Lin, Jonathan Lorraine, Roger B. GrosseNeurIPS 2024 · 41 citations
  4. Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A SurveyRongwu Xu, Zehan Qi, Zhijiang Guo, Cunxiang Wang et al.EMNLP 2024 · 38 citations
  5. A Bayesian Approach To Analysing Training Data Attribution In Deep LearningElisa Nguyen, Minjoon Seo, Seong Joon OhNeurIPS 2023 · 16 citations

Builds on12

  1. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP TasksPatrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 19,162 citations
  2. Retrieval Augmented Language Model Pre-TrainingKelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat et al.ICML 2020 · 2,937 citations
  3. Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient DescentGarima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Satyen Kale, Mukund SundararajanNeurIPS 2020 · 784 citations
  4. Fast Model Editing at ScaleEric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn et al.ICLR 2022 · 527 citations
  5. Scaling Up Influence FunctionsAndrea Schioppa, Polina Zablotskaia, David Vilar, Artem SokolovAAAI 2022 · 149 citations

Related papers

  1. Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model PretrainingTyler A. Chang, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Tolga Bolukbasi, Lucas Dixon et al.ICLR 2025 · 1 citation
  2. Give Me the Facts! A Survey on Factual Knowledge Probing in Pre-trained Language ModelsPaul Youssef, Osman Alperen Koras, Meijie Li, Jörg Schlötterer et al.EMNLP Findings 2023 · 9 citations
  3. FASTTRACK: Reliable Fact Tracing via Clustering and LLM-Powered Evidence ValidationSi Chen, Feiyang Kang, Ning Yu, Ruoxi JiaEMNLP Findings 2024 · 3 citations
  4. When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric MemoriesAlex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das et al.ACL 2023 · 233 citations
  5. Test-time Augmentation for Factual ProbingGo Kamoda, Benjamin Heinzerling, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Kentaro InuiEMNLP Findings 2023
Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines