mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Assessing Per-Sample Membership Inference Vulnerability without Retraining

arXiv 2602.15919 ↗First posted 17 Feb 2026stat.ML cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Membership inference attacks

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent work in the privacy literature shows that sample-targeted membership inference attacks (MIAs) significantly outperform untargeted approaches by a wide margin. Motivated by this observation, we address the following question: can the privacy vulnerability of individual training points be assessed without training shadow models? We show that per-sample exposure to MIA is governed not only by a point's loss, but also by a data-dependent geometric measure. In the linear setting, we derive a closed-form decomposition of individual black-box MIA vulnerability into a population leverage score and a residual loss term, making explicit how sample-dependent geometry translates into privacy exposure. Since the final layer of most modern architectures is linear, we extend this framework to deep networks and propose a surrogate score operating on last-layer representations that requires only a single trained model and no shadow models. Empirical evaluations across diverse datasets and architectures show that our score outperforms loss and gradient-norm baselines at identifying the highest-risk points under state-of-the-art attacks, providing a computationally efficient and theoretically grounded tool for per-sample privacy risk assessment.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Membership inference attacks, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 24 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2026.

Builds on

24 of 35 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Do Parameters Reveal More than Loss for Membership Inference?17 Jun
  2. 2023Low-Cost High-Power Membership Inference Attacks6 Dec
  3. 2022Membership Inference Attack Using Self Influence Functions26 May
  4. 2022Parameters or Privacy: A Provable Tradeoff Between Overparameterization and Membership Inference2 Feb
  5. 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principles7 Dec

Other references · 19

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,764
  3. 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
  4. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
  5. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
  6. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,657
  7. 2018The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networkscited by 847
  8. 2019Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Modelscited by 512
  9. 2020What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimationcited by 492
  10. 2018ML-Leaks: Model and Data Independent Membership Inference Attacks and Defenses on Machine Learning Modelscited by 475
  11. 2018Certified Robustness to Adversarial Examples with Differential Privacycited by 462
  12. 2019Does Learning Require Memorization? A Short Tale about a Long Tailcited by 452
7 more
  1. 2021Remember What You Want to Forget: Algorithms for Machine Unlearningcited by 360
  2. 2020Systematic Evaluation of Privacy Risks of Machine Learning Modelscited by 273
  3. 2020Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are Fragilecited by 247
  4. 2020Auditing Differentially Private Machine Learning: How Private is Private SGD?cited by 213
  5. 2021Adversary Instantiation: Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Machine Learningcited by 193
  6. 2022The Privacy Onion Effect: Memorization is Relativecited by 128
  7. 2015Heterogeneous Differential Privacycited by 30

Built on by

Not cited yet.