Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Evaluating the Dynamics of Membership Privacy in Deep Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A sample's membership privacy is largely fixed by epoch 150 of training.

desk verdict Novel per-sample trajectory framework with solid aggregate findings; the headline early-exposure claim lacks a noise baseline and is not yet convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23291 v2 pith:5UICUNHC submitted 2025-07-31 cs.LG cs.AI

Yuetian Chen , Zhiqi Wang , Nathalie Baracaldo , Swanand Ravindra Kadhe , Lei Yu This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords membershipinferenceattacksprivacyleakagedynamicsper-samplevulnerabilitytrainingsamplehardnessepistemicuncertaintysharpness-awareminimizationFPR-TPRplane
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that membership-inference vulnerability is not a static property of a finished model but a dynamic process that unfolds during training, sample by sample. The authors track each training point's vulnerability as a (false-positive rate, true-positive rate) coordinate across checkpoints and show that harder-to-learn samples move fastest into a high-risk region. Their headline result is temporal: for complex datasets, over 70% of samples that end up vulnerable have already shown that predisposition by epoch 150 of a 400-epoch run. If this is right, privacy protection can move from auditing a trained model to intervening early in training, on a small set of predictable high-risk samples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the vulnerability plane, the unit square whose x-axis is a sample's false-positive rate and whose y-axis is its true-positive rate under a membership inference attack. A sample's state at epoch $t$ is the coordinate pair $(\mathrm{FPR}_z(t), \mathrm{TPR}_z(t))$, estimated by running a population of 20 shadow models and applying LiRA; the membership advantage $\alpha_z = \mathrm{TPR}_z - \mathrm{FPR}_z$ is the scalar field on this plane. The framework converts training into a sequence of such states and defines metrics on them: membership encoding speed (epoch-to-epoch displacement), center-of-mass displacement, transition probabilities between nine discretized cells, spatial entropy, and vulnerability path length. These metrics carry the argument because the early-exposure claim is exactly a statement about the time at which trajectories leave the low-risk cell $S_{11}$ and enter the high-risk cell $S_{31}$.

What would settle it

Train the same four configurations but with 100 or more shadow models and per-sample variance estimates, then recompute the vulnerability trajectories and the cumulative early-exposure curve; if the set of samples identified by epoch 150 changes substantially, the early-disclosure result is an artifact of the estimator rather than a property of training.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that per-sample membership encoding follows a vulnerability trajectory on an FPR-TPR plane, and that this trajectory is governed by the sample's intrinsic learning difficulty rather than by chance. Using a population of shadow models at each checkpoint, it estimates each sample's membership advantage $\alpha_z = \mathrm{TPR}_z - \mathrm{FPR}_z$ and records how that advantage evolves. The empirical findings are that dataset complexity, model capacity, and optimizer choice systematically change the speed and heterogeneity of encoding; that cumulative effort and epistemic-uncertainty metrics predict both final and dynamic vulnerability; and that the final vulnerability of high-risk samples is effectively sealed early in training. The paper also shows that Sharpness-Aware Minimization suppresses the transition of samples into the highly vulnerable region throughout training.

Load-bearing premise

The per-sample vulnerability signal is estimated from only 20 shadow models with a shared variance estimate; if that is too few, the epoch-by-epoch movements and the early-exposure curve are contaminated by sampling noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Privacy audits can be run on early checkpoints: by epoch 150 the vulnerable population is already identifiable, so post-hoc evaluation can be supplemented or replaced by in-training warning signals.
  • Hard-to-learn samples, which can be flagged by epistemic uncertainty during training, are the ones that need targeted protection rather than blanket defenses.
  • Optimizer choice matters for privacy: SAM's flat-minimum bias reduces both the peak transition probability into the high-risk region and the final vulnerability.
  • The qualitative conclusions are not tied to one attack: the same dynamic trends appear with both the LiRA and the earlier shadow-model attack.
  • Model capacity has a direct privacy price: deeper models show faster and more heterogeneous membership encoding, creating a privacy-underprivileged subset of samples.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper does not develop is an early-exposure predictor: train only to epoch 150, rank samples by path length, and use that ranking to decide which samples to exclude, reweight, or regularize.
  • The framework should transfer to language models if checkpoints are available; memorization in LLMs is also concentrated on rare or hard tokens, and the same FPR-TPR trajectory machinery applies to token- or sequence-level queries.
  • The strong correlation with epistemic uncertainty suggests a testable intervention: adding a penalty that discourages rising epistemic uncertainty on the most vulnerable samples could suppress the early transition into the high-risk region.
  • A sharper test of causality would be to adversarially select samples that are easy yet vulnerable; if such samples exist, hardness is not the whole story and the early-exposure rule would need refinement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dynamic analytical framework for studying membership privacy leakage at the per-sample level throughout training. It tracks each sample's vulnerability as an (FPR, TPR) point on a vulnerability plane across epochs, using LiRA with 20 shadow models to estimate per-sample membership advantage. The framework introduces metrics such as membership encoding speed, center-of-mass displacement, transition probabilities, and vulnerability path length. The experiments cover four datasets (MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, CINIC-10), three architectures, and optimizers including SAM, and report five findings: dataset complexity accelerates and amplifies encoding; deeper architectures catalyze memorization; SAM suppresses leakage; sample hardness correlates strongly with vulnerability; and vulnerability trajectories are often established early in training, with 'over 70% of all samples that will ultimately be vulnerable in the final model have already revealed this predisposition by just epoch 150.' The appendix replicates the aggregate trends with the Shokri et al. attack.

Significance. If the central early-exposure claim (Finding 5) held, the paper would make a substantive contribution by shifting privacy auditing from a post-hoc to a proactive, in-training activity, with practical implications for targeted intervention and privacy-aware optimization. The framework itself is a useful conceptual contribution, and the aggregate findings on dataset complexity, architecture, and optimizer choice are internally consistent and partially replicated with a second, methodologically distinct attack. The hardness–vulnerability correlations (Finding 4) are based on quantities that are not circularly defined, and the strongest correlations (epistemic uncertainty ≥ 0.9) are striking. However, the strongest claim—early exposure—currently lacks a noise baseline and statistical support, and the measurement procedure (20 shadow models) makes the per-sample trajectories potentially dominated by sampling noise.

major comments (3)
  1. [Evaluation, MIA Method; Early Exposure of Vulnerable Samples, Eq. (3), Fig. 6b] The per-sample advantage α_z(t) is estimated from only 20 shadow models, giving roughly 10 in-models and 10 out-models per sample. Under the null hypothesis, the standard error of α_z(t) is approximately sqrt(0.25/10 + 0.25/10) ≈ 0.22. The Vulnerability Path Length L(z) in Eq. (3) sums absolute differences of these noisy per-epoch estimates over roughly 40 checkpoints, so even a completely non-vulnerable sample will accumulate a substantial expected path length from measurement noise. The selection of 'high-travel' samples therefore preferentially picks samples with large early fluctuation, which may be sampling error rather than genuine vulnerability dynamics. Figure 6b's claim that over 70% of ultimately vulnerable samples are identified by epoch 150 is not accompanied by a null baseline, bootstrap confidence intervals, or split-half reproducibility. The appendix's replication with the Shokri et al. attack covers only aggregate metrics (Tables 4 and 5), not the per-sample trajectories that drive Finding 5. This is a load-bearing gap for the paper's strongest claim.
  2. [Early Exposure of Vulnerable Samples, Fig. 6b] The flagging rule used to generate Figure 6b is underspecified. The text says 'we can flag the samples with the longest vulnerability path lengths up to that point as high-risk,' but it does not state what fraction of samples is flagged (e.g., top 1%, top 20%, or a threshold on L). Without this, the 70% statistic is not interpretable: if 70% of all samples are flagged at epoch 150, then 70% of the final vulnerable population would be flagged by random chance. The paper should report the selection rate, the precision and recall of the flagging rule, and a comparison against a random-flagging baseline at the same selection rate. It should also state whether the 70% figure refers to the vulnerable population or to the entire dataset.
  3. [Evaluation, Tables 1–2 and Fig. 3] The aggregate dynamic metrics (CoM Displacement, entropy change, transition probabilities, and the 'tipping point' peaks in Fig. 3) are reported as point values without uncertainty from the finite shadow-model population. Since all of these metrics are functions of the same noisy α_z(t) estimates, the quantitative comparisons across datasets and architectures would be more convincing with bootstrap confidence intervals across shadow models or across checkpoint sets. The monotonic trends are suggestive, but the reported magnitudes—such as the 13.9% vs. 10.3% peak transition probabilities—may not be statistically distinguishable under the current noise level.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a sentence fragment: 'we discover a robust correlation between a sample's intrinsic learning difficulty, and find that...' This should be 'between a sample's intrinsic learning difficulty and its membership vulnerability, and find that...'
  2. [The Vulnerability Plane as a Geometric State Space (Transition Matrix)] The transition matrix entry a_{ij,kl}(t) is defined as the fraction of samples transitioning between states, but Figure 3 plots a conditional probability P(v_{t+1} ∈ S31 | v_t ∈ S11). These are different quantities; the relationship should be clarified.
  3. [The Vulnerability Plane as a Geometric State Space] The text says '3×3 grid with diving both TPR and FPR axes to intervals'; 'diving' should be 'dividing', and the grid-cut definition could be stated more clearly.
  4. [Early Exposure of Vulnerable Samples, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) sums from t=0 to T−1, but the vulnerability trajectory is defined as (v_1(z),...,v_T(z)), so the index range should be consistent with the notation, e.g., t=1 to T−1.
  5. [Appendix: Consistency of Findings with Alternative MIA Methods] The heading 'Impact of Dataset Complexity' appears twice; the two paragraphs should be merged or given distinct headings.
  6. [Figure 6b] The caption says 'under different datasets,' but the surrounding text only describes CIFAR-10. Please clarify whether the curve is for CIFAR-10 or for multiple datasets, and specify which datasets are shown.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper's dynamic metrics, hardness correlations, and early-exposure curve are empirical relationships between distinct measured quantities, not definitions or fitted predictions.

full rationale

None of the paper's load-bearing claims reduces to its own inputs by construction. The sample-level advantage alpha_z = TPR_z - FPR_z is estimated from a population of shadow models under the LiRA attack, while the hardness metrics (gradient norm, iteration learned, influence functions, aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty) are separate quantities computed from the learning process itself; therefore, the correlations in Table 3 are empirical rather than definitional. Finding 5's vulnerability path length L(z) = sum |alpha_{t+1}(z) - alpha_t(z)| is defined over the trajectory, whereas final vulnerability is alpha_T(z) > 0; early exposure is assessed using partial path length, which does not contain the final-vulnerability label, so the 70% early-exposure result is not forced by the equations. The paper does not fit a parameter to the final vulnerable population and then rename that fit as a prediction, and it invokes no self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem to rule out alternatives; the appendix's replication with the Shokri et al. attack provides an external check. The skeptic's concern that per-checkpoint alpha estimates from only 20 shadow models may be noisy and that no null baseline is provided is a legitimate measurement-robustness criticism, but it is not a circularity under the review rules. No load-bearing step was found to be equivalent to its inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the vulnerability plane and trajectories are measurement constructs. The paper's central measurements rest on statistical assumptions about the data distribution, the reliability of LiRA with 20 shadow models, and the operationalization of sample hardness. The 3x3 grid is a hand-chosen discretization that affects all transition and entropy metrics.

free parameters (2)
  • 3x3 vulnerability plane grid thresholds = 1/3 and 2/3 on both the TPR and FPR axes
    Chosen by hand; all transition probabilities, spatial entropy, and clustering-derived conclusions depend on this discretization.
  • Number of shadow models per epoch = 20
    Chosen based on LiRA guidance rather than by fitting; it controls the noise in per-sample TPR/FPR values, and no confidence intervals are derived from this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dtrain and Dout are drawn i.i.d. from a fixed data distribution D.
    The threat model and the membership advantage definition depend on this exchangeability assumption; stated in The MIA Game section.
  • domain assumption LiRA with 20 shadow models and a global variance estimate gives valid per-sample vulnerability scores at every checkpoint.
    All dynamic metrics are built on these scores, yet no error bars or stability checks are provided; see the Evaluation section, MIA Method.
  • ad hoc to paper Epistemic uncertainty, influence functions, and iteration learned are meaningful measures of intrinsic sample hardness during training.
    Finding 4 uses these as predictors of vulnerability, but their estimators and computation timing are not specified in the paper, and they are computed from the same training process used to measure vulnerability.
  • domain assumption The 3x3 state discretization captures the population dynamics, and the one-step transition probability a11,31 is a faithful indicator of vulnerability onset.
    The tipping point and transition probability conclusions depend on this arbitrary grid; see Population-level Sample Dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating the Dynamics of Membership Privacy in Deep Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UICUNHC

@misc{pith2026250723291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating the Dynamics of Membership Privacy in Deep Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UICUNHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23291}
}
read the original abstract

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) pose a critical threat to the privacy of training data in deep learning. Despite significant progress in attack methodologies, our understanding of when and how models encode membership information during training remains limited. This paper presents a dynamic analytical framework for dissecting and quantifying privacy leakage dynamics at the individual sample level. By tracking per-sample vulnerabilities on an FPR-TPR plane throughout training, our framework systematically measures how factors such as dataset complexity, model architecture, and optimizer choice influence the rate and severity at which samples become vulnerable. Crucially, we discover a robust correlation between a sample's intrinsic learning difficulty, and find that the privacy risk of samples highly vulnerable in the final trained model is largely determined early during training. Our results thus provide a deeper understanding of how privacy risks dynamically emerge during training, laying the groundwork for proactive, privacy-aware model training strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of sample-level vulnerability trajecto￾ries. Each dot on a path represents a sample’s vulnerability state, characterized by its membership attack metric (FPR, TPR), esti￾mated from N model variations at a given epoch. The distinct paths illustrate how membership encoding evolves uniquely for each sample—nuances obscured by traditional post-hoc analyses that only assess the final state ( ). in time (i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Post-training FPR-TPR planes for different datasets: (a) MNIST, (b) Fashion MNIST, (c) CIFAR-10, and (d) CINIC-10. The histograms along two axes represent the density distributions of TPR and FPR values. MIA Method. To instantiate our framework, we require a robust method to estimate the per-sample advantage, αz. We employ the Likelihood Ratio Attack (LiRA) (Carlini et al. 2022), known for its strong performance, pa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Transition probabilities from robust region(low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of training dynamics and detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between sample-level membership ad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Post-training FPR-TPR planes for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Post-training FPR-TPR planes for different archi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Membership Inference Attacks on Tokenizers of Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Tokenizers leak dataset membership: using distinctive tokens that appear in a dataset's text, an attacker can detect with AUC up to 0.77 whether that dataset was part of tokenizer training.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bagdasaryan, E.; Poursaeed, O.; and Shmatikov, V. 2019. Differential privacy has disparate impact on model accuracy. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    A.; Jia, H.; Travers, A.; Zhang, B.; Lie, D.; and Papernot, N

    Bourtoule, L.; Chandrasekaran, V.; Choquette-Choo, C. A.; Jia, H.; Travers, A.; Zhang, B.; Lie, D.; and Papernot, N. 2020. Machine Unlearning. arXiv:1912.03817

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Carlini, N.; Chien, S.; Nasr, M.; Song, S.; Terzis, A.; and Tramèr, F. 2022. Membership Inference Attacks From First Principles. In 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 1897--1914

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Carlini, N.; Tramer, F.; Wallace, E.; Jagielski, M.; Herbert-Voss, A.; Lee, K.; Roberts, A.; Brown, T.; Song, D.; Erlingsson, U.; et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX security symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2633--2650

    2021

  5. [5]

    Chang, H.; and Shokri, R. 2021. On the privacy risks of algorithmic fairness. In 2021 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), 292--303. IEEE

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Chen, D.; Chen, H.; Jin, H.; Cui, J.; and Zhong, H. 2024. Hide in Plain Sight: Clean-Label Backdoor for Auditing Membership Inference. arXiv:2411.16763

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, M.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, T.; Backes, M.; Humbert, M.; and Zhang, Y. 2021. When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '21, 896–911. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450384544

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Chen, Z.; Badrinarayanan, V.; Lee, C.-Y.; and Rabinovich, A. 2018. GradNorm: Gradient Normalization for Adaptive Loss Balancing in Deep Multitask Networks. arXiv:1711.02257

    arXiv 2018

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A.; Tramer, F.; Carlini, N.; and Papernot, N

    Choquette-Choo, C. A.; Tramer, F.; Carlini, N.; and Papernot, N. 2021 a . Label-only membership inference attacks. In International conference on machine learning, 1964--1974. PMLR

    2021

  2. [10]

    A.; Tramer, F.; Carlini, N.; and Papernot, N

    Choquette-Choo, C. A.; Tramer, F.; Carlini, N.; and Papernot, N. 2021 b . Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks. arXiv:2007.14321

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    N.; Crowley, E

    Darlow, L. N.; Crowley, E. J.; Antoniou, A.; and Storkey, A. J. 2018. CINIC-10 is not ImageNet or CIFAR-10. arXiv:1810.03505

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Feldman, V. 2020. Does learning require memorization? a short tale about a long tail. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, 954--959

    2020

  5. [13]

    Foret, P.; Kleiner, A.; Mobahi, H.; and Neyshabur, B. 2021. Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalization. arXiv:2010.01412

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Geiping, J.; Bauermeister, H.; Dr \"o ge, H.; and Moeller, M. 2020. Inverting gradients-how easy is it to break privacy in federated learning? Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 16937--16947

    2020

  7. [15]

    Hayes, J.; Melis, L.; Danezis, G.; and De Cristofaro, E. 2017. Logan: Membership inference attacks against generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.07663

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hitaj, B.; Ateniese, G.; and Perez-Cruz, F. 2017. Deep models under the GAN: information leakage from collaborative deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 603--618

    2017

  9. [17]

    S.; and Zhang, X

    Hu, H.; Salcic, Z.; Sun, L.; Dobbie, G.; Yu, P. S.; and Zhang, X. 2022. Membership inference attacks on machine learning: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(11s): 1--37

    2022

  10. [18]

    H \"u llermeier, E.; and Waegeman, W. 2021. Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods. Machine learning, 110(3): 457--506

    2021

  11. [19]

    Jayaraman, B.; and Evans, D. 2019 a . Evaluating Differentially Private Machine Learning in Practice. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19), 1895--1912. Santa Clara, CA: USENIX Association. ISBN 978-1-939133-06-9

    2019

  12. [20]

    Jayaraman, B.; and Evans, D. 2019 b . Evaluating differentially private machine learning in practice. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19), 1895--1912

    2019

  13. [21]

    Jayaraman, B.; Wang, L.; Knipmeyer, K.; Gu, Q.; and Evans, D. 2020. Revisiting membership inference under realistic assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10881

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    W.; and Liang, P

    Koh, P. W.; and Liang, P. 2020. Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions. arXiv:1703.04730

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Krizhevsky, A.; and Hinton, G. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical Report 0, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

    2009

  16. [24]

    LeCun, Y.; Bottou, L.; Bengio, Y.; and Haffner, P. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11): 2278--2324

    1998

  17. [25]

    LeCun, Y.; Cortes, C.; and Burges, C. J. 1998. The MNIST Database of Handwritten Digits. http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/. Accessed: 2024-08-25

    1998

  18. [26]

    Leino, K.; and Fredrikson, M. 2020. Stolen memories: Leveraging model memorization for calibrated \ White-Box \ membership inference. In 29th USENIX security symposium (USENIX Security 20), 1605--1622

    2020

  19. [27]

    Li, Z.; and Zhang, Y. 2021. Membership Leakage in Label-Only Exposures. arXiv:2007.15528

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A.; and Chen, K

    Long, Y.; Bindschaedler, V.; Wang, L.; Bu, D.; Wang, X.; Tang, H.; Gunter, C. A.; and Chen, K. 2018. Understanding Membership Inferences on Well-Generalized Learning Models. arXiv:1802.04889

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Loshchilov, I. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mireshghallah, F.; Goyal, K.; Uniyal, A.; Berg-Kirkpatrick, T.; and Shokri, R. 2022. Quantifying Privacy Risks of Masked Language Models Using Membership Inference Attacks. arXiv:2203.03929

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nasr, M.; Shokri, R.; and Houmansadr, A. 2019. Comprehensive privacy analysis of deep learning: Passive and active white-box inference attacks against centralized and federated learning. In 2019 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP), 739--753. IEEE

    2019

  24. [32]

    Nasr, M.; Songi, S.; Thakurta, A.; Papernot, N.; and Carlin, N. 2021. Adversary Instantiation: Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Machine Learning. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 866--882

    2021

  25. [33]

    Rigaki, M.; and Garcia, S. 2023. A survey of privacy attacks in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(4): 1--34

    2023

  26. [34]

    Ruder, S. 2016. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sablayrolles, A.; Douze, M.; Schmid, C.; Ollivier, Y.; and J \'e gou, H. 2019. White-box vs black-box: Bayes optimal strategies for membership inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 5558--5567. PMLR

    2019

  28. [36]

    Salem, A.; Zhang, Y.; Humbert, M.; Berrang, P.; Fritz, M.; and Backes, M. 2018. ML-Leaks: Model and Data Independent Membership Inference Attacks and Defenses on Machine Learning Models. arXiv:1806.01246

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Shokri, R. 2022. Auditing Data Privacy for Machine Learning. Santa Clara, CA: USENIX Association

    2022

  30. [38]

    Shokri, R.; Stronati, M.; Song, C.; and Shmatikov, V. 2017. Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models. arXiv:1610.05820

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Song, L.; and Mittal, P. 2021. Systematic evaluation of privacy risks of machine learning models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2615--2632

    2021

  32. [40]

    Song, L.; Shokri, R.; and Mittal, P. 2019. Privacy risks of securing machine learning models against adversarial examples. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 241--257

    2019

  33. [41]

    M.; Papernot, N.; Goldenberg, A.; and Ghassemi, M

    Suriyakumar, V. M.; Papernot, N.; Goldenberg, A.; and Ghassemi, M. 2021. Chasing your long tails: Differentially private prediction in health care settings. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 723--734

    2021

  34. [43]

    T.; Trischler, A.; Bengio, Y.; and Gordon, G

    Toneva, M.; Sordoni, A.; des Combes, R. T.; Trischler, A.; Bengio, Y.; and Gordon, G. J. 2019. An Empirical Study of Example Forgetting during Deep Neural Network Learning. arXiv:1812.05159

    2019 arXiv

  35. [44]

    E.; Yu, L.; and Wei, W

    Truex, S.; Liu, L.; Gursoy, M. E.; Yu, L.; and Wei, W. 2021. Demystifying Membership Inference Attacks in Machine Learning as a Service. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 14(6): 2073--2089

    2021

  36. [45]

    Watson, L.; Guo, C.; Cormode, G.; and Sablayrolles, A. 2022. On the Importance of Difficulty Calibration in Membership Inference Attacks. arXiv:2111.08440

    2022 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Xiao, H.; Rasul, K.; and Vollgraf, R. 2017. Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747

    2017 arXiv

  38. [47]

    K.; Bindschaedler, V.; and Shokri, R

    Ye, J.; Maddi, A.; Murakonda, S. K.; Bindschaedler, V.; and Shokri, R. 2022. Enhanced membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 3093--3106

    2022

  39. [48]

    Yeom, S.; Giacomelli, I.; Fredrikson, M.; and Jha, S. 2018. Privacy Risk in Machine Learning: Analyzing the Connection to Overfitting. arXiv:1709.01604

    2018 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Zagoruyko, S.; and Komodakis, N. 2016. Wide residual networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07146

    2016 arXiv

  41. [50]

    u hle, V.; Paverd, A.; Ohrimenko, O.; K \

    Zanella-B \'e guelin, S.; Wutschitz, L.; Tople, S.; R \"u hle, V.; Paverd, A.; Ohrimenko, O.; K \"o pf, B.; and Brockschmidt, M. 2020. Analyzing information leakage of updates to natural language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communic...

    2020

  42. [51]

    R.; and Bilen, H

    Zhao, B.; Mopuri, K. R.; and Bilen, H. 2020. idlg: Improved deep leakage from gradients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.02610

    2020 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Zhu, L.; Liu, Z.; and Han, S. 2019. Deep leakage from gradients. In NeurIPS

    2019

  44. [53]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  45. [54]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.