Investigating Membership Inference Attacks under Data Dependencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training machine learning models on privacy-sensitive data has become a popular practice, driving innovation in ever-expanding fields. This has opened the door to new attacks that can have serious privacy implications. One such attack, the Membership Inference Attack (MIA), exposes whether or not a particular data point was used to train a model. A growing body of literature uses Differentially Private (DP) training algorithms as a defence against such attacks. However, these works evaluate the defence under the restrictive assumption that all members of the training set, as well as non-members, are independent and identically distributed. This assumption does not hold for many real-world use cases in the literature. Motivated by this, we evaluate membership inference with statistical dependencies among samples and explain why DP does not provide meaningful protection (the privacy parameter $ε$ scales with the training set size $n$) in this more general case. We conduct a series of empirical evaluations with off-the-shelf MIAs using training sets built from real-world data showing different types of dependencies among samples. Our results reveal that training set dependencies can severely increase the performance of MIAs, and therefore assuming that data samples are statistically independent can significantly underestimate the performance of MIAs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".