Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study audits a memorization probe on a Qwen2.5-VL-7B canary testbed, revealing three critical cases of disagreement between the probe's results and full-span secret NLL metrics. The findings highlight issues such as false negatives due to window truncation and false positives from non-secret drift, which can mislead interpretations of model memorization capabilities. The authors recommend specific reporting practices to enhance the reliability of memorization assessments, emphasizing the importance of full-span evaluations and localized decompositions.
Misleading memorization verdicts can arise from probe choice, with significant implications for interpreting model performance in AI systems.
We audit a fixed prefix-window mean-NLL memorization probe (K=20) on a Qwen2.5-VL-7B canary testbed and report three post-hoc cases where it disagrees with full-span secret NLL or greedy exact-recall. C3 (false negative, window truncation): damage lands on hex tokens outside K=20; the probe stays flat while hit@1 drops. C4 (false positive, non-secret drift): the probe moves, but approximately 99% sits on non-secret preamble; the secret span and hit@1 are unchanged. C5 (ambiguous in-window drop): the probe falls on an undertrained baseline while full-span hex is positive and hit@1=0. Recommendation: report (i) full-span secret NLL, (ii) a span-localised decomposition, (iii) behavioural exact-recall at k>=4, and (iv) decoy probes before asserting secret-specificity. Evidence is on controlled canaries in one backbone; magnitudes are testbed-specific.
