Quantifying Privacy Risks of Prompts in Visual Prompt Learning
On the map: LLM safety and security → Membership inference attacks
Abstract (arXiv)
Large-scale pre-trained models are increasingly adapted to downstream tasks through a new paradigm called prompt learning. In contrast to fine-tuning, prompt learning does not update the pre-trained model's parameters. Instead, it only learns an input perturbation, namely prompt, to be added to the downstream task data for predictions. Given the fast development of prompt learning, a well-generalized prompt inevitably becomes a valuable asset as significant effort and proprietary data are used to create it. This naturally raises the question of whether a prompt may leak the proprietary information of its training data. In this paper, we perform the first comprehensive privacy assessment of prompts learned by visual prompt learning through the lens of property inference and membership inference attacks. Our empirical evaluation shows that the prompts are vulnerable to both attacks. We also demonstrate that the adversary can mount a successful property inference attack with limited cost. Moreover, we show that membership inference attacks against prompts can be successful with relaxed adversarial assumptions. We further make some initial investigations on the defenses and observe that our method can mitigate the membership inference attacks with a decent utility-defense trade-off but fails to defend against property inference attacks. We hope our results can shed light on the privacy risks of the popular prompt learning paradigm. To facilitate the research in this direction, we will share our code and models with the community.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Membership inference attacks, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. First posted on arXiv 18 Oct 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 4.
8 papers.
- 2024PROMPTFUZZ: Harnessing Fuzzing Techniques for Robust Testing of Prompt Injection in LLMscited by 17
- 2024Exploring the Transferability of Visual Prompting for Multimodal Large Language Modelscited by 15
- 2025Privacy-Preserving Personalized Federated Prompt Learning for Multimodal Large Language Modelscited by 5
- 2025SoK: Data Reconstruction Attacks Against Machine Learning Models: Definition, Metrics, and Benchmarkcited by 5
- 2024Are You Copying My Prompt? Protecting the Copyright of Vision Prompt for VPaaS via Watermarkcited by 4
- 2025Synthetic Artifact Auditing: Tracing LLM-Generated Synthetic Data Usage in Downstream Applicationscited by 4
- 2024Encapsulating Knowledge in One Promptcited by 3
- 2025DP-GPL: Differentially Private Graph Prompt Learningcited by 0
- 2025SoK: Data Reconstruction Attacks Against Machine Learning Models: Definition, Metrics, and Benchmark9 Jun 2025
- 2025DP-GPL: Differentially Private Graph Prompt Learning13 Mar 2025
- 2025Synthetic Artifact Auditing: Tracing LLM-Generated Synthetic Data Usage in Downstream Applications2 Feb 2025
- 2025Privacy-Preserving Personalized Federated Prompt Learning for Multimodal Large Language Models23 Jan 2025
- 2024PROMPTFUZZ: Harnessing Fuzzing Techniques for Robust Testing of Prompt Injection in LLMs23 Sep 2024
- 2024Encapsulating Knowledge in One Prompt16 Jul 2024
- 2024Are You Copying My Prompt? Protecting the Copyright of Vision Prompt for VPaaS via Watermark24 May 2024
- 2024Exploring the Transferability of Visual Prompting for Multimodal Large Language Models17 Apr 2024