Where Did You Learn That From? Surprising Effectiveness of Membership Inference Attacks Against Temporally Correlated Data in Deep Reinforcement Learning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While significant research advances have been made in the field of deep reinforcement learning, a major challenge to widespread industrial adoption of deep reinforcement learning that has recently surfaced but little explored is the potential vulnerability to privacy breaches. In particular, there have been no concrete adversarial attack strategies in literature tailored for studying the vulnerability of deep reinforcement learning algorithms to membership inference attacks. To address this gap, we propose an adversarial attack framework tailored for testing the vulnerability of deep reinforcement learning algorithms to membership inference attacks. More specifically, we design a series of experiments to investigate the impact of temporal correlation, which naturally exists in reinforcement learning training data, on the probability of information leakage. Furthermore, we study the differences in the performance of \emph{collective} and \emph{individual} membership attacks against deep reinforcement learning algorithms. Experimental results show that the proposed adversarial attack framework is surprisingly effective at inferring the data used during deep reinforcement training with an accuracy exceeding $84\%$ in individual and $97\%$ in collective mode on two different control tasks in OpenAI Gym, which raises serious privacy concerns in the deployment of models resulting from deep reinforcement learning. Moreover, we show that the learning state of a reinforcement learning algorithm significantly influences the level of the privacy breach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".