Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

CopyBench: Measuring Literal and Non-Literal Reproduction of Copyright-Protected Text in Language Model Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.07087 v2 pith:CRQXRE6F submitted 2024-07-09 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords copyingliteralnon-literalmodelsreproductionalthoughcopybenchcopyright-protected
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating the degree of reproduction of copyright-protected content by language models (LMs) is of significant interest to the AI and legal communities. Although both literal and non-literal similarities are considered by courts when assessing the degree of reproduction, prior research has focused only on literal similarities. To bridge this gap, we introduce CopyBench, a benchmark designed to measure both literal and non-literal copying in LM generations. Using copyrighted fiction books as text sources, we provide automatic evaluation protocols to assess literal and non-literal copying, balanced against the model utility in terms of the ability to recall facts from the copyrighted works and generate fluent completions. We find that, although literal copying is relatively rare, two types of non-literal copying -- event copying and character copying -- occur even in models as small as 7B parameters. Larger models demonstrate significantly more copying, with literal copying rates increasing from 0.2\% to 10.5\% and non-literal copying from 2.3\% to 5.9\% when comparing Llama3-8B and 70B models, respectively. We further evaluate the effectiveness of current strategies for mitigating copying and show that (1) training-time alignment can reduce literal copying but may increase non-literal copying, and (2) current inference-time mitigation methods primarily reduce literal but not non-literal copying.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MATH-Perturb: Benchmarking LLMs' Math Reasoning Abilities against Hard Perturbations

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Hard perturbations that change the required solution method cause 10-25% accuracy drops across 18 LLMs on MATH, revealing limits in reasoning robustness.

  2. ISACL: Internal State Analyzer for Copyrighted Training Data Leakage

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An MLP trained on LLM internal states predicts Rouge-L-defined literal copying leakage with high accuracy, but not paraphrase-level leakage.

Pith tools