Papers › Refinement Provenance Inference: Detecting LLM-Refined Training Prompts from Model Behavior

Refinement Provenance Inference: Detecting LLM-Refined Training Prompts from Model Behavior

5 Jan 2026arXiv:2601.01966added by Syntology

Bo Yin, Qi Li, Runpeng Yu, Xinchao Wang

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Instruction tuning increasingly relies on LLM-based prompt refinement, where prompts in the training corpus are selectively rewritten by an external refiner to improve clarity and instruction alignment. This motivates an instance-level audit problem: for a fine-tuned model and a training prompt-response pair, can we infer whether the model was trained on the original prompt or its LLM-refined version within a mixed corpus? This matters for dataset governance and dispute resolution when training data are contested. However, it is non-trivial in practice: refined and raw instances are interleaved in the training corpus with unknown, source-dependent mixture ratios, making it harder to develop provenance methods that generalize across models and training setups. In this paper, we formalize this audit task as Refinement Provenance Inference (RPI) and show that prompt refinement yields stable, detectable shifts in teacher-forced token distributions, even when semantic differences are not obvious. Building on this phenomenon, we propose RePro, a logit-based provenance framework that fuses teacher-forced likelihood features with logit-ranking signals. During training, RePro learns a transferable representation via shadow fine-tuning, and uses a lightweight linear head to infer provenance on unseen victims without training-data access. Empirically, RePro consistently attains strong performance and transfers well across refiners, suggesting that it exploits refiner-agnostic distribution shifts rather than rewrite-style artifacts.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

8 samples harvested; 7 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 8 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from YinBo0927/RePro. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2601.01966, was issued in January 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections