Adversarial Sample-Based Approach for Tighter Privacy Auditing in Final Model-Only Scenarios
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Auditing Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) in the final model setting is challenging and often results in empirical lower bounds that are significantly looser than theoretical privacy guarantees. We introduce a novel auditing method that achieves tighter empirical lower bounds without additional assumptions by crafting worst-case adversarial samples through loss-based input-space auditing. Our approach surpasses traditional canary-based heuristics and is effective in final model-only scenarios. Specifically, with a theoretical privacy budget of varepsilon = 10.0, our method achieves empirical lower bounds of 4.914, compared to the baseline of 4.385 for MNIST. Our work offers a practical framework for reliable and accurate privacy auditing in differentially private machine learning.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 36 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Dec 2024.
Builds on
36 of 48 references.
References · 36
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
- 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
- 2018The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networkscited by 847
- 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principlescited by 839
- 2017Renyi Differential Privacycited by 643
- 2021Opacus: User-Friendly Differential Privacy Library in PyTorchcited by 375
- 2016Semi-supervised Knowledge Transfer for Deep Learning from Private Training Datacited by 347
- 2013The Composition Theorem for Differential Privacycited by 290
- 2022Unlocking High-Accuracy Differentially Private Image Classification through Scalecited by 218
- 2020Auditing Differentially Private Machine Learning: How Private is Private SGD?cited by 213
- 2021Adversary Instantiation: Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Machine Learningcited by 193
- 2021Numerical Composition of Differential Privacycited by 174
24 more
- 2022Reconstructing Training Data with Informed Adversariescited by 143
- 2022Reconstructing Training Data from Trained Neural Networkscited by 129
- 2023Privacy Auditing with One (1) Training Runcited by 119
- 2020Synthetic Data -- Anonymisation Groundhog Daycited by 105
- 2018Privacy Amplification by Iterationcited by 97
- 2021Differential Privacy Dynamics of Langevin Diffusion and Noisy Gradient Descentcited by 71
- 2022Privacy of Noisy Stochastic Gradient Descent: More Iterations without More Privacy Losscited by 60
- 2024Position: LLM Unlearning Benchmarks are Weak Measures of Progresscited by 58
- 2022Connect the Dots: Tighter Discrete Approximations of Privacy Loss Distributionscited by 50
- 2022Differentially Private Learning Needs Hidden State (Or Much Faster Convergence)cited by 45
- 2022Debugging Differential Privacy: A Case Study for Privacy Auditingcited by 39
- 2018Detecting Violations of Differential Privacycited by 37
- 2023One-shot Empirical Privacy Estimation for Federated Learningcited by 35
- 2024Evaluations of Machine Learning Privacy Defenses are Misleadingcited by 35
- 2022Bayesian Estimation of Differential Privacycited by 31
- 2024Auditing f-Differential Privacy in One Runcited by 28
- 2022CANIFE: Crafting Canaries for Empirical Privacy Measurement in Federated Learningcited by 24
- 2019Privacy Amplification by Mixing and Diffusion Mechanismscited by 21
- 2024Nearly Tight Black-Box Auditing of Differentially Private Machine Learningcited by 19
- 2024Tighter Privacy Auditing of DP-SGD in the Hidden State Threat Modelcited by 17
- 2024Shifted Interpolation for Differential Privacycited by 10
- 2024It's Our Loss: No Privacy Amplification for Hidden State DP-SGD With Non-Convex Losscited by 10
- 2024The Last Iterate Advantage: Empirical Auditing and Principled Heuristic Analysis of Differentially Private SGDcited by 10
- 2024Auditing Private Predictioncited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.