Measuring memorization in RLHF for code completion
Jamie Hayes, Ilia Shumailov, William P. Porter, Aneesh Pappu
摘要
Reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) has become the dominant method to align large models to user preferences. Unlike fine-tuning, for which there are many studies regarding training data memorization, it is not clear how memorization is affected by or introduced in the RLHF alignment process. Understanding this relationship is important as real user data may be collected and used to align large models; if user data is memorized during RLHF and later regurgitated, this could raise privacy concerns. In addition to RLHF, other methods such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and ΨPO have gained popularity for learning directly from human preferences, removing the need for optimizing intermediary reward models with reinforcement learning. In this work, we analyze how training data memorization can surface and propagate through each phase of RLHF and direct preference learning. We focus our study on code completion models, as code completion is one of the most popular use cases for large language models. We find that RLHF significantly decreases the chance that data used for reward modeling and reinforcement learning is memorized in comparison to directly fine-tuning on this data, but that examples already memorized during the fine-tuning stage of RLHF, will, in the majority of cases, remain memorized after RLHF. In contrast, we find that aligning by learning directly from human preference data via a special case of ΨPO, Identity Preference Optimization (IPO), increases the likelihood that training data is regurgitated compared to RLHF. Our work suggests that RLHF, as opposed to direct preference learning, is a safer way to mitigate the risk of regurgitating sensitive preference data when aligning large language models. We find our conclusions are robust across multiple code completion datasets, tasks, and model scales.
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了最后一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
引用它的顶会 Paper3
- Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judgeDawei Li, Renliang Sun, Yue Huang, Ming Zhong 等ICLR 2026 · 被引用 150 次
- Extracting alignment data in open modelsFederico Barbero, Xiangming Gu, Christopher A. Choquette Choo, Chawin Sitawarin 等ICML 2026 · 被引用 9 次
- Beyond Indistinguishability: Measuring Extraction Risk in LLM APIsRuixuan Liu, David Evans, Li XiongS&P 2026 · 被引用 1 次
它引用的顶会 Paper15
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida 等NeurIPS 2022 · 被引用 24,707 次
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning 等NeurIPS 2023 · 被引用 10,924 次
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes 等ICLR 2020 · 被引用 4,112 次
- Extracting Training Data from Large Language ModelsNicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski 等USENIX Security 2021 · 被引用 2,866 次
- Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language ModelsWeijia Shi, Anirudh Ajith, Mengzhou Xia, Yangsibo Huang 等ICLR 2024 · 被引用 365 次
相关 Paper
- Is DPO Superior to PPO for LLM Alignment? A Comprehensive StudyShusheng Xu, Wei Fu, Jiaxuan Gao, Wenjie Ye 等ICML 2024 · 被引用 274 次
- Active Preference Learning for Large Language ModelsWilliam Muldrew, Peter Hayes, Mingtian Zhang, David BarberICML 2024 · 被引用 53 次
- Explicit Preference Optimization: No Need for an Implicit Reward ModelXiangkun Hu, Lemin Kong, Tong He, David WipfICML 2025
- Using Human Feedback to Fine-tune Diffusion Models without Any Reward ModelKai Yang, Jian Tao, Jiafei Lyu, Chunjiang Ge 等CVPR 2024 · 被引用 34 次
- Provably Mitigating Overoptimization in RLHF: Your SFT Loss is Implicitly an Adversarial RegularizerZhihan Liu, Miao Lu, Shenao Zhang, Boyi Liu 等NeurIPS 2024 · 被引用 119 次
