MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mitigating Membership Inference Attacks in Machine Learning as a Service

2023· article· en· W4386214387 on OpenAlexaff
Myria Bouhaddi, Kamel Adi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInferenceExploitMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer securityDifferential privacyClassifier (UML)Private information retrievalConfidentialityInformation sensitivityData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing use of Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) has raised privacy and security issues due to membership inference attacks. These attacks can extract sensitive information such as the identification of an individual's participation in a training dataset, by exploiting a binary classifier with limited access. The attacks exploit weaknesses in the decision boundaries of the model, and can lead to the disclosure of private information. However, the current defenses against such attacks, such as those based on differential privacy or regularization, have significant limitations. Therefore, further research is needed to develop effective defenses that maintain the utility of machine learning models while providing formal guarantees, even in the presence of strategic adversaries. In this paper, we focus on mitigating the risks of black-box inference attacks against machine learning models as a service. We propose a defense mechanism that brings the attacker's inference classifier into a zone of uncertainty, rendering it unable to classify a data point as a member or non-member. This mechanism takes into account the attacker's behavior by modeling the interaction between defense and attacker as a game, considering potential gains in confidentiality and costs. Our experiments on two datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in mitigating membership inference attacks. Furthermore, our defense mechanism outperforms existing defenses by offering superior privacy-utility-performance tradeoffs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207