Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

One Framework for All: Cross-Modal Membership Inference for Generative Models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read One black-box likelihood-ratio test on embeddings works for membership inference across text-to-text, text-to-image, and image-to-text generative models.

desk verdict First working unified black-box MIA across T2T/T2I/I2T; the embedding LRT is competitive or better under zero-knowledge, with the Gaussian small-sample step as the main soft underbelly. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04339 v1 pith:KDKO24KZ submitted 2026-07-05 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CR

Dayong Ye , Tainqing Zhu , Kun Gao , Junhao Liu , Yichuan Chen , Shuai Zhou , Hengzhu Liu , Bo Liu
show 1 more author
Wanlei Zhou
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CR
keywords membershipinferencegenerativemodelscross-modallikelihoodratiotestblack-boxattackembeddingspacefine-tuningprivacyzero-knowledge
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

Generative models in three different modalities leak training membership through a shared statistical property: their outputs approximate the distribution of the data they were trained on. The authors turn that property into a single attack. They generate synthetic samples from the target model, collect (or synthesize) non-member samples, map both sets into a shared embedding space with an off-the-shelf encoder, fit simple Gaussians, and decide membership by a likelihood-ratio test. The same procedure works under partial knowledge of the data domain and under zero knowledge, and it works for both fine-tuning data and pre-training data. Experiments show the attack matches or beats modality-specific state-of-the-art methods while remaining strictly black-box. A sympathetic reader cares because modern AI systems already combine text and image generators; a privacy analysis that cannot travel across those components is incomplete.

What carries the argument

The log-likelihood ratio under two empirical Gaussians fitted in embedding space (Eq. 3–4): a target sample is declared a member if its embedding is more likely under the synthetic distribution than under the real/auxiliary distribution.

What would settle it

Hold the attack fixed and replace the Gaussian likelihood-ratio rule with a pure distance-to-mean rule (cosine or Wasserstein) on the same embeddings; if the attack accuracy collapses across all three modalities, the claim that second-order distributional statistics are necessary is falsified. Conversely, if a non-Gaussian density estimator yields no further gain, the Gaussian approximation is sufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Likelihood-based training drives a generative model's output distribution toward its training distribution; once that fact is accepted, membership of a target sample can be decided by comparing its embedding likelihood under the model's synthetic output distribution versus an auxiliary non-member distribution, using a single Neyman–Pearson threshold of zero that is modality-agnostic and black-box.

Load-bearing premise

That the mean and covariance of a modest number of embeddings, obtained from a fixed off-the-shelf encoder, are already good enough approximations of the true member and non-member distributions for the zero-threshold likelihood-ratio test to stay near-optimal.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified black-box membership inference attack that applies across text-to-text (LLMs), text-to-image (diffusion), and image-to-text (VLM) generative models. The core idea is that likelihood-based training makes a model’s output distribution approximate its training (or fine-tuning) distribution; the adversary therefore estimates multivariate Gaussian distributions of embeddings of model-generated samples versus auxiliary non-member samples (real data under partial knowledge, or lightly perturbed synthetic samples under zero knowledge) and decides membership by a log-likelihood-ratio test with threshold zero (Eqs. 3–4). Extensive experiments under both threat models, on fine-tuning and pre-training data, and against modality-specific SOTA baselines (Tables I–II, XI) show competitive or superior ASR/AUC/TPR@1%FPR, with ablations on sample size, extractor choice, distribution estimator, distance metrics, threshold, classifier alternative, and DP-SGD defense.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the work supplies the first practical cross-modal MIA that does not require modality-specific signals, shadow models, or white-box access. The zero-knowledge setting and the extension to pre-training data are especially useful for real-world auditing of closed generative systems. The theoretical section correctly links likelihood training to KL minimization and shows that the zero-threshold LRT is Bayes-optimal under equal priors and Gaussian class-conditionals; the extensive ablation suite (dataset size, extractors, geometric median, distance vs likelihood, threshold, classifier, DP-SGD) gives the community concrete evidence of robustness and of the residual utility–privacy trade-off under DP-SGD. These contributions are of clear interest to the privacy and generative-model communities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Steps 2–3, Eq. (3)] Section V and Steps 2–3 rest on the claim that the empirical mean and covariance of only 1–3 % of |D_tune| embeddings under a fixed off-the-shelf encoder are statistically sufficient for the Neyman–Pearson LRT (Eq. 4) under the multivariate Gaussian model (Eq. 3). The manuscript never reports the embedding dimension d, the condition number of Σ, or any normality diagnostic. For typical DistilBERT/BLIP/MiniLM dimensions the sample covariance estimated from a few hundred points is singular or ill-conditioned, rendering the quadratic form in Eq. 3 unstable. A short analysis (regularization of Σ, PCA projection, or a normality check) is needed to confirm that residual error versus the baselines is not an artifact of this premise.
  2. [Section IV, Step 1; Section V (ii)] In the zero-knowledge construction (Section IV, Step 1 and Eq. 5) D_aux is obtained by light noise or paraphrasing of D_syn. Any residual correlation between the two clouds shrinks the KL gap that Section V claims drives separability. The paper should quantify the empirical KL (or a proxy) between the estimated (μ_aux, Σ_aux) and (μ_syn, Σ_syn) and show that it remains large enough for the observed AUCs in Table II; otherwise the zero-knowledge gains may be overstated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4] Figure 4 (t-SNE) is only qualitative; a quantitative distance (e.g., MMD or estimated KL) between the four clouds would strengthen the claim that generated data hug the member distribution more tightly than test or external non-members.
  2. [Tables III–V] Tables III–V show that extractor choice can drop ASR by 20–30 points (e.g., MPNet on LLaVA+COCO). A short practical guideline for selecting E would help readers reproduce the best-case numbers.
  3. [Section III, Step 4] Notation occasionally re-uses x for both the input–output pair and the ground-truth output (footnote after Eq. 3); a consistent convention would improve readability.
  4. [Table XII, Section IX] The DP-SGD hyper-parameters (Table XII) produce quite different privacy budgets across modalities; a brief justification or a common-ε comparison would make the defense results easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: LRT decision rule and threshold-0 follow from standard Neyman-Pearson/Bayes arguments under the Gaussian model; no parameters are fitted to evaluation membership labels.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Section V(i) recalls the elementary fact that likelihood training minimizes KL(p_train || p_theta), so model outputs approximate the training distribution; this is a standard consequence of NLL minimization, not a definition that presupposes the attack. Embeddings are extracted with fixed off-the-shelf encoders (DistilBERT, BLIP, MiniLM, etc.) chosen for modality alignment, then empirical mean/covariance are computed from synthetic outputs and auxiliary non-members (Steps 2-3). Membership is decided by the log-likelihood ratio under the resulting Gaussians (Eq. 3) with the threshold fixed at zero (Eq. 4). Section V(ii-iii) shows that this threshold is exactly the Bayes-optimal rule under equal priors and 0-1 loss; the expectation gap equals the KL divergence between the two embedding clouds. No free parameter is fitted to the membership labels of the evaluation set itself, nor is any uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported via self-citation. Ablations (dataset size, extractors, geometric median, distance metrics, classifier replacement, threshold values) treat the components as independent variables and report performance changes, confirming that the central claim is not forced by construction. The Gaussian-plus-small-sample premise is an empirical modeling assumption whose validity is tested rather than assumed by definition; any residual error relative to modality-specific baselines is therefore a correctness/robustness issue, not circularity. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

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

The central claim rests on standard likelihood-training theory plus a handful of modeling choices (Gaussian embeddings, fixed extractors, equal priors, small auxiliary set). No new physical entities are invented. Free parameters are mainly engineering knobs (sample fraction, noise type, extractor identity) that the ablations show are not highly sensitive.

free parameters (4)
  • fraction of D_tune used for D_syn / D_real (or D_aux)
    Set to 1–3 % in experiments; treated as a tunable hyper-parameter whose effect is shown to be limited but still chosen by the authors.
  • choice of embedding extractor E (DistilBERT, BLIP, MiniLM, etc.)
    Selected per modality; ablations show performance varies, so the reported numbers depend on this choice.
  • noise / paraphrase strength for zero-knowledge auxiliary set
    Controls the non-membership probability argument; magnitude is not fixed by theory and is set experimentally.
  • DP-SGD noise scale σ and clipping norm C
    Used only in the defense section; values (Table XII) are chosen by hand to achieve target ε.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Likelihood-based training drives the model output distribution toward the empirical training distribution (KL minimization).
    Standard for LLMs, diffusion, and VLMs; invoked in Section V(i) and used to justify why synthetic samples approximate members.
  • ad hoc to paper Embeddings of real and synthetic samples are well-approximated by multivariate Gaussians whose mean and covariance can be estimated from a few hundred samples.
    Enables the closed-form log-likelihood (Eq. 3); justified by LLN/CLT/Hoeffding but never validated by normality tests on the actual embeddings.
  • domain assumption Equal prior probabilities on member vs non-member, so the Bayes-optimal threshold on the log-likelihood ratio is zero.
    Stated in Section V(iii); common in MIA literature but not always true in practice.
  • ad hoc to paper Auxiliary samples obtained by light noise or paraphrasing of synthetic outputs are almost surely non-members of D_tune.
    Probabilistic argument in Eq. 5; relies on an unknown small match probability p that is not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One Framework for All: Cross-Modal Membership Inference for Generative Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDKO24KZ

@misc{pith2026260704339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One Framework for All: Cross-Modal Membership Inference for Generative Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDKO24KZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04339}
}
read the original abstract

Large generative models across text-to-text, text-to-image, and image-to-text modalities have been shown to pose significant privacy risks. One fundamental threat is membership inference attacks (MIA), which aim to determine whether a given data point was used in a model's training set. Although prior work has investigated MIAs against these three classes of generative models, existing approaches treat them in isolation and are not cross-applicable, thereby limiting their real-world utility. To address this limitation, we present the first comprehensive study of a unified membership inference framework that applies across text-to-text, text-to-image, and image-to-text modalities. Our approach is grounded in a key modality-agnostic observation: the output distribution of a generative model can approximate its training data distribution. Leveraging this property, we model the distributions of model-generated outputs and auxiliary non-member samples in a shared embedding space, and perform membership inference via likelihood ratio testing. We conduct extensive experiments in a strict black-box setting under both partial-knowledge and zero-knowledge threat models, and evaluate membership inference against both fine-tuning and pre-training data. Experimental results demonstrate our approach's superior performance in comparison to existing state-of-the-art methods, which are typically optimized for a single model class.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04339 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our attack strategy under the partial-knowledge setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our attack strategy under the zero knowledge setting: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of auxiliary data construction under three classes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: t-SNE Visualization of Data Distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AUC Performance of Our Method Under Different Dataset Sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ASR Performance of Our Method Under Different Dataset Sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TPR@1%FPR of Our Method Under Different Dataset Sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ASR and AUC Performance of Our Method with Different Distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: TPR@1%FPR Performance of Our Method with Different Distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: TPR@1%FPR of Our Method with Different Threshold Values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ASR and AUC of Our Method with Different Threshold Values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples of images generated by a text-to-image model trained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    LLMGA: Multimodal Large Language Model based Generation Assistant,

    B. Xia, S. Wang, Y . Tao, Y . Wang, and J. Jia, “LLMGA: Multimodal Large Language Model based Generation Assistant,” inProc. of ECCV, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Evaluating Multimodal Language Models as Visual Assistants for Visually Impaired Users,

    A. Karamolegkou, M. Nikandrou, G. Pantazopoulos, D. S. Villegas, P. Rust, R. Dhar, D. Hershcovich, and A. Søgaard, “Evaluating Multimodal Language Models as Visual Assistants for Visually Impaired Users,” in Proc. of ACL, 2025, p. 25949–25982

    2025

  3. [3]

    Membership Inference Attacks Against Machine Learn- ing Models,

    R. Shokri, M. Stronati, C. Song, and V . Shmatikov, “Membership Inference Attacks Against Machine Learn- ing Models,” inProc. of IEEE S & P, 2017, pp. 3–18

    2017

  4. [4]

    Practical Member- ship Inference Attacks Against Large-Scale Multi-Modal Models: A Pilot Study,

    M. Ko, M. Jin, C. Wang, and R. Jia, “Practical Member- ship Inference Attacks Against Large-Scale Multi-Modal Models: A Pilot Study,” inProc. of ICCV, 2023, pp. 4871–4881

    2023

  5. [5]

    Tokens for Learning, Tokens for Unlearning: Mitigating Membership Inference Attacks in Large Language Models via Dual-Purpose Training,

    T. Tran, R. Liu, and L. Xiong, “Tokens for Learning, Tokens for Unlearning: Mitigating Membership Inference Attacks in Large Language Models via Dual-Purpose Training,” inProc. of ACL, 2025, p. 22872–22888

    2025

  6. [6]

    Practical Membership Inference Attacks against Fine- tuned Large Language Models via Self-prompt Calibra- tion,

    W. Fu, H. Wang, C. Gao, G. Liu, Y . Li, and T. Jiang, “Practical Membership Inference Attacks against Fine- tuned Large Language Models via Self-prompt Calibra- tion,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2024, pp. 134 981 – 135 010

    2024

  7. [7]

    Black-box Membership Inference Attacks against Fine-tuned Diffusion Models,

    Y . Pang and T. Wang, “Black-box Membership Inference Attacks against Fine-tuned Diffusion Models,” inProc. of NDSS, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Membership Inference Attacks Against Vision- Language Models,

    Y . Hu, Z. Li, Z. Liu, Y . Zhang, Z. Qin, K. Ren, and C. Chen, “Membership Inference Attacks Against Vision- Language Models,” inProc. of USENIX Security, 2025

    2025

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    MM-LLMs: Recent Advances in Mul- tiModal Large Language Models,

    D. Zhang, Y . Yu, J. Dong, C. Li, D. Su, C. Chu, and D. Yu, “MM-LLMs: Recent Advances in Mul- tiModal Large Language Models,” inACL, 2024, p. 12401–12430

    2024

  2. [10]

    Gen- erative Multimodal Models are In-Context Learners,

    Q. Sun, Y . Cui, X. Zhang, F. Zhang, Q. Yu, Z. Luo, Y . Wang, Y . Rao, J. Liu, T. Huang, and X. Wang, “Gen- erative Multimodal Models are In-Context Learners,” in Proc. of CVPR, 2024, p. 14398–14409

    2024

  3. [11]

    GPT-4 Technical Report,

    OpenAI, “GPT-4 Technical Report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dif- fusion Models in Vision: A Survey,

    F. Croitoru, V . Hondru, R. T. Ionescu, and M. Shah, “Dif- fusion Models in Vision: A Survey,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 10 850 – 10 869, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Survey,

    J. Zhang, J. Huang, S. Jin, and S. Lu, “Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Survey,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 5625 – 5644, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    ChestX-ray8: Hospital-scale Chest X-ray Database and Benchmarks on Weakly-Supervised Classi- fication and Localization of Common Thorax Diseases,

    X. Wang, Y . Peng, L. Lu, Z. Lu, M. Bagheri, and R. Summers, “ChestX-ray8: Hospital-scale Chest X-ray Database and Benchmarks on Weakly-Supervised Classi- fication and Localization of Common Thorax Diseases,” inProc. of CVPR, 2017, pp. 3462–3471

    2017

  7. [15]

    BLIP: Bootstrap- ping Language-Image Pre-training for Unified Vision- Language Understanding and Generation,

    J. Li, D. Li, C. Xiong, and S. Hoi, “BLIP: Bootstrap- ping Language-Image Pre-training for Unified Vision- Language Understanding and Generation,” inProc. of ICML, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attacks,

    K. Lee, K. Lee, H. Lee, and J. Shin, “A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attacks,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Visualizing Data using t-SNE,

    L. van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing Data using t-SNE,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 9, no. 86, pp. 2579–2605, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever, “Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners,” 2019. [Online]. Available: OpenAIblog

    2019

  11. [19]

    The Falcon Series of Open Language Models,

    E. Almazrouei and et al., “The Falcon Series of Open Language Models,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16867 14

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models,

    S. Merity, C. Xiong, J. Bradbury, and R. Socher, “Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models,” inProc. of ICLR, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Don’t Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convo- lutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization,

    S. Narayan, S. B. Cohen, and M. Lapata, “Don’t Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convo- lutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization,” inProc. of EMNLP, 2018, p. 1797–1807

    2018

  14. [22]

    Dis- tilBERT, a Distilled Vrsion of BERT: Smaller, Faster, Cheaper and Lighter,

    V . Sanh, L. Debut, J. Chaumond, and T. Wolf, “Dis- tilBERT, a Distilled Vrsion of BERT: Smaller, Faster, Cheaper and Lighter,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    High-Resolution Image Synthesis with La- tent Diffusion Models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-Resolution Image Synthesis with La- tent Diffusion Models,” inCVPR, 2022, pp. 10 684– 10 695

    2022

  16. [24]

    LAION-5B: An open large- scale dataset for training next generation image-text models,

    C. Schuhmann and et al., “LAION-5B: An open large- scale dataset for training next generation image-text models,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context,

    T. Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Dollar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context,” inProc. of ECCV, 2014, p. 740–755

    2014

  18. [26]

    Talk- to-Edit: Fine-Grained Facial Editing via Dialog,

    Y . Jiang, Z. Huang, X. Pan, C. C. Loy, and Z. Liu, “Talk- to-Edit: Fine-Grained Facial Editing via Dialog,” inProc. of ICCV, 2021, pp. 13 799–13 808

    2021

  19. [27]

    Visual Instruction Tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual Instruction Tuning,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    MiniGPT-4: Enhancing Vision-Language Understand- ing with Advanced Large Language Models,

    D. Zhu, J. Chen, X. Shen, X. Li, and M. Elhoseiny, “MiniGPT-4: Enhancing Vision-Language Understand- ing with Advanced Large Language Models,” inProc. of ICLR, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    all-MiniLM-L6-v2,

    “all-MiniLM-L6-v2,” 2024. [Online]. Avail- able: https://huggingface.co/sentence-transformers/ all-MiniLM-L6-v2

    2024

  22. [30]

    Membership Inference Attacks as Privacy Tools: Reliability, Disparity and Ensemble,

    Z. Wang, C. Zhang, Y . Chen, N. Baracaldo, S. R. Kadhe, and L. Yu, “Membership Inference Attacks as Privacy Tools: Reliability, Disparity and Ensemble,” inProc. of ACM CCS, 2025, pp. 1724–1738

    2025

  23. [31]

    In-Context Probing for Membership Inference in Fine-Tuned Language Models,

    Z. Lu, H. Chi, N. Baracaldo, S. R. Kadhe, Y . Jeon, and L. Yu, “In-Context Probing for Membership Inference in Fine-Tuned Language Models,” inProc. of NDSS Symposium, 2026

    2026

  24. [32]

    Membership Inference on Text- to-Image Diffusion Models via Conditional Likelihood Discrepancy,

    S. Zhai, H. Chen, Y . Dong, J. Li, Q. Shen, Y . Gao, H. Su, and Y . Liu, “Membership Inference on Text- to-Image Diffusion Models via Conditional Likelihood Discrepancy,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Membership Inference Attacks against Large Vision-Language Models,

    Z. Li, Y . Wu, Y . Chen, F. Tonin, E. A. Rocamora, and V . Cevher, “Membership Inference Attacks against Large Vision-Language Models,” inProc. of NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach,

    Y . Liu, M. Ott, N. Goyal, J. Du, M. Joshi, D. Chen, O. Levy, M. Lewis, L. Zettlemoyer, and V . Stoyanov, “Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach,” 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Visual transformers: Token-based image representation and processing for computer vision

    B. Wu, C. Xu, X. Dai, A. Wan, P. Zhang, Z. Yan, M. Tomizuka, J. Gonzalez, K. Keutzer, and P. Vajda, “Visual transformers: Token-based image representation and processing for computer vision.” [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03677

    2006 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Model card: Clip

    “Model card: Clip.” [Online]. Available: https: //huggingface.co/openai/clip-vit-base-patch32

  29. [37]

    Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations,

    Z. Lan, M. Chen, S. Goodman, K. Gimpel, P. Sharma, and R. Soricut, “Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11942

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    all-mpnet-base-v2

    “all-mpnet-base-v2.” [Online]. Available: https:// huggingface.co/sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2

  31. [39]

    Guided-diffusion

    “Guided-diffusion.” [Online]. Available: https://github. com/openai/guided-diffusion

  32. [40]

    Deep Learning with Differential Privacy,

    M. Abadi, A. Chu, I. Goodfellow, H. B. McMahan, I. Mironov, K. Talwar, and L. Zhang, “Deep Learning with Differential Privacy,” inProc. of CCS, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Dual- Model Defense: Safeguarding Diffusion Models from Membership Inference Attacks through Disjoint Data Splitting,

    B. Q. Tran, V . Nguyen, A. Tran, and T. Tran, “Dual- Model Defense: Safeguarding Diffusion Models from Membership Inference Attacks through Disjoint Data Splitting,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ pdf/2410.16657

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Comprehen- sive Privacy Analysis of Deep Learning: Passive and Active White-box Inference Attacks against Centralized and Federated Learning,

    M. Nasr, R. Shokri, and A. Houmansadr, “Comprehen- sive Privacy Analysis of Deep Learning: Passive and Active White-box Inference Attacks against Centralized and Federated Learning,” inProc. of IEEE S & P, 2019, pp. 739–753

    2019

  35. [43]

    Enhanced Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models,

    J. Ye, A. Maddi, S. K. Murakonda, V . Bindschaedler, and R. Shokri, “Enhanced Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models,” inCCS, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Survey,

    H. Hu, Z. Salcic, L. Sun, G. Dobbie, P. S. Yu, and X. Zhang, “Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 11s, pp. 235:1–37, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks,

    C. A. Choquette-Choo, F. Tramer, N. Carlini, and N. Pa- pernot, “Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks,” in Proc. of ICML, 2021, pp. 1964–1974

    2021

  38. [46]

    Membership Leakage in Label-Only Exposures,

    Z. Li and Y . Zhang, “Membership Leakage in Label-Only Exposures,” inProc. of CCS, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    You Only Query Once: An Efficient Label-Only Membership Inference Attack,

    Y . Wu, H. Qiu, S. Guo, J. Li, and T. Zhang, “You Only Query Once: An Efficient Label-Only Membership Inference Attack,” inProc. of ICLR, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Enhanced Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks with Fewer Queries,

    H. Li, Z. Li, S. Wu, Y . Ye, M. Zhang, D. Feng, and Y . Zhang, “Enhanced Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks with Fewer Queries,” inProc. of USENIX Secu- rity, 2025, pp. 5465–5483

    2025

  41. [49]

    Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?

    M. Duan, A. Suri, N. Mireshghallah, S. Min, W. Shi, L. Zettlemoyer, Y . Tsvetkov, Y . Choi, D. Evans, and H. Hajishirzi, “Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?” inProc. of COLM, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Scaling Up Membership Inference: When and How Attacks Succeed on Large Language Models,

    H. Puerto, M. Gubri, S. Yun, and S. J. Oh, “Scaling Up Membership Inference: When and How Attacks Succeed on Large Language Models,” inProc. of NAACL, 2025, p. 4165–4182

    2025

  43. [51]

    DCMI: A Differential Calibration Membership Inference Attack Against Retrieval-Augmented Generation,

    X. Gao, X. Meng, Y . Dong, Z. Li, and S. Guo, “DCMI: A Differential Calibration Membership Inference Attack Against Retrieval-Augmented Generation,” inProc. of ACM CCS, 2025, pp. 4184–4198

    2025

  44. [52]

    Riddle Me This! Stealthy Membership Inference for Retrieval-Augmented Generation,

    A. Naseh, Y . Peng, A. Suri, H. Chaudhari, A. Oprea, and A. Houmansadr, “Riddle Me This! Stealthy Membership Inference for Retrieval-Augmented Generation,” inProc. of ACM CCS, 2025, pp. 1245–1259

    2025

  45. [53]

    Generated Distributions Are All You Need for Mem- bership Inference Attacks Against Generative Models,

    M. Zhang, N. Yu, R. Wen, M. Backes, and Y . Zhang, 15 “Generated Distributions Are All You Need for Mem- bership Inference Attacks Against Generative Models,” inProc. of WACV, 2024, pp. 4827–4837

    2024

  46. [54]

    Variance-Based Membership Inference Attacks Against Large-Scale Image Captioning Models,

    D. Samira, E. Habler, Y . Elovici, and A. Shabtai, “Variance-Based Membership Inference Attacks Against Large-Scale Image Captioning Models,” inProc. of CVPR, 2025, pp. 9210–9219

    2025

  47. [55]

    Min-K%++: Improved Baseline for Detecting Pre-Training Data from Large Language Models,

    J. Zhang, J. Sun, E. Yeats, Y . Ouyang, M. Kuo, J. Zhang, H. F. Yang, and H. Li, “Min-K%++: Improved Baseline for Detecting Pre-Training Data from Large Language Models,” inProc. of ICLR, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Towards Label-Only Membership Inference Attack against Pre-trained Large Language Models,

    Y . He, B. Li, L. Liu, Z. Ba, W. Dong, Y . Li, Z. Qin, K. Ren, and C. Chen, “Towards Label-Only Membership Inference Attack against Pre-trained Large Language Models,” inProc. of USENIX Security, 2025

    2025

  49. [57]

    Context-Aware Membership Inference Attacks against Pre-trained Large Language Models,

    H. Chang, A. S. Shamsabadi, K. Katevas, H. Haddadi, and R. Shokri, “Context-Aware Membership Inference Attacks against Pre-trained Large Language Models,” in Proc. of EMNLP, 2025, p. 7299–7321. I. DESCRIPTIONS OFDATASETS Wikitext-103is a large-scale corpus containing over 100 ...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.