Free Record-Level Privacy Risk Evaluation Through Artifact-Based Methods
On the map: LLM safety and security → Membership inference attacks
Abstract (arXiv)
Membership inference attacks (MIAs) are widely used to empirically assess privacy risks in machine learning models, both providing model-level vulnerability metrics and identifying the most vulnerable training samples. State-of-the-art methods, however, require training hundreds of shadow models with the same architecture as the target model. This makes the computational cost of assessing the privacy of models prohibitive for many practical applications, particularly when used iteratively as part of the model development process and for large models. We propose a novel approach for identifying the training samples most vulnerable to membership inference attacks by analyzing artifacts naturally available during the training process. Our method, Loss Trace Interquartile Range (LT-IQR), analyzes per-sample loss trajectories collected during model training to identify high-risk samples without requiring any additional model training. Through experiments on standard benchmarks, we demonstrate that LT-IQR achieves 92% precision@k=1% in identifying the samples most vulnerable to state-of-the-art MIAs. This result holds across datasets and model architectures with LT-IQR outperforming both traditional vulnerability metrics, such as loss, and lightweight MIAs using few shadow models. We also show LT-IQR to accurately identify points vulnerable to multiple MIA methods and perform ablation studies. We believe LT-IQR enables model developers to identify vulnerable training samples, for free, as part of the model development process. Our results emphasize the potential of artifact-based methods to efficiently evaluate privacy risks.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Membership inference attacks, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 33 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Nov 2024.
Builds on
33 of 48 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2023Low-Cost High-Power Membership Inference Attacks6 Dec
- 2023Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models1 Feb
- 2022Membership Inference Attacks by Exploiting Loss Trajectory31 Aug
- 2022Bayesian Estimation of Differential Privacy10 Jun
- 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principles7 Dec
- 2021Enhanced Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models18 Nov
Other references · 27
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016Wide Residual Networkscited by 3,057
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
- 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2022Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Modelscited by 755
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 565
- 2020What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimationcited by 492
- 2021Opacus: User-Friendly Differential Privacy Library in PyTorchcited by 375
- 2019White-box vs Black-box: Bayes Optimal Strategies for Membership Inferencecited by 265
- 2020Auditing Differentially Private Machine Learning: How Private is Private SGD?cited by 213
15 more
- 2019R'enyi Differential Privacy of the Sampled Gaussian Mechanismcited by 199
- 2021Adversary Instantiation: Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Machine Learningcited by 193
- 2017Machine Learning Models that Remember Too Muchcited by 165
- 2021Counterfactual Memorization in Neural Language Modelscited by 155
- 2023How to DP-fy ML: A Practical Guide to Machine Learning with Differential Privacycited by 150
- 2022Reconstructing Training Data with Informed Adversariescited by 143
- 2022The Privacy Onion Effect: Memorization is Relativecited by 128
- 2023Privacy Auditing with One (1) Training Runcited by 119
- 2020ML Privacy Meter: Aiding Regulatory Compliance by Quantifying the Privacy Risks of Machine Learningcited by 66
- 2022Debugging Differential Privacy: A Case Study for Privacy Auditingcited by 39
- 2024Copyright Traps for Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2022Individual Privacy Accounting for Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 20
- 2024Causal Estimation of Memorisation Profilescited by 20
- 2022Individual Privacy Accounting with Gaussian Differential Privacycited by 19
- 2023Gradients Look Alike: Sensitivity is Often Overestimated in DP-SGDcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025The DCR Delusion: Measuring the Privacy Risk of Synthetic Datacited by 11
- 2026Revisiting the LiRA Membership Inference Attack Under Realistic Assumptionscited by 3
- 2025Imitative Membership Inference Attackcited by 2
- 2025Estimating Model-Level Membership Inference Vulnerability Without Reference Modelscited by 1
- 2026Risk-Equalized Differentially Private Synthetic Data: Protecting Outliers by Controlling Record-Level Influencecited by 0
- 2026Predicting Privacy Leakage from Weight Spectral Densitycited by 0
- 2026Predicting Privacy Leakage from Weight Spectral Density10 Sep 2026
- 2026Revisiting the LiRA Membership Inference Attack Under Realistic Assumptions8 Mar 2026
- 2026Risk-Equalized Differentially Private Synthetic Data: Protecting Outliers by Controlling Record-Level Influence10 Feb 2026
- 2025Estimating Model-Level Membership Inference Vulnerability Without Reference Models22 Oct 2025
- 2025Imitative Membership Inference Attack8 Sep 2025
- 2025The DCR Delusion: Measuring the Privacy Risk of Synthetic Data2 May 2025