Advancing the State-of-the-Art in Empirical Privacy Auditing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs) can exhibit problematic memorization of individual training examples. Empirical privacy auditing (EPA) quantifies this risk by measuring realistic data leakage on membership inference (MI) or reconstruction attacks. A key challenge in EPA is designing ``canary'' examples that are mixed with the privacy-sensitive training data. We propose generating synthetic canaries via high-temperature sampling (T ≥ 0.8) from LLMs, using prompts tailored to the privacy-sensitive training data. These canaries act as high-influence outliers, ensuring high identifiability and hence strong audits. Further, since the canaries are themselves non-private, they are inspectable and can be inserted with repetition without jeopardizing the privacy of the real data. An important use of models fine-tuned on privacy-sensitive data is the generation of synthetic data. This also comes with privacy risk. We introduce a powerful synthetic data audit based on fine-tuning an auxiliary model on the synthetic data. Auditing the auxiliary model for the original canaries then provides a strong estimate of the privacy leakage through the synthetic data. Finally, leveraging our strong auditing methodologies, we perform a systematic investigation into the interacting effects of model capacity and canary entropy on memorization.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.
Builds on
17 of 32 references.
References · 17
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,728
- 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
- 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principlescited by 878
- 2018The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networkscited by 864
- 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 470
- 2013The Composition Theorem for Differential Privacycited by 297
- 2020Auditing Differentially Private Machine Learning: How Private is Private SGD?cited by 218
- 2021Adversary Instantiation: Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Machine Learningcited by 199
- 2023User Inference Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2024Auditing f-Differential Privacy in One Runcited by 30
- 2022CANIFE: Crafting Canaries for Empirical Privacy Measurement in Federated Learningcited by 24
5 more
- 2025The Canary's Echo: Auditing Privacy Risks of LLM-Generated Synthetic Textcited by 18
- 2025How to DP-fy Your Data: A Practical Guide to Generating Synthetic Data With Differential Privacycited by 13
- 2024Auditing Differential Privacy Guarantees Using Density Estimationcited by 6
- 2025Gaussian DP for Reporting Differential Privacy Guarantees in Machine Learningcited by 6
- 2025Optimizing Canaries for Privacy Auditing with Metagradient Descentcited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Privacy Auditing of Large Language Models
- 2026Phantoms and Disclosures: A Statistical Framework for Auditing Privacy in Synthetic Data
- 2025Privacy Auditing Synthetic Data Release through Local Likelihood Attacks
- 2024SafeSynthDP: Leveraging Large Language Models for Privacy-Preserving Synthetic Data Generation Using Differential Privacy
- 2026LLM-CEG: Extending the Classification Error Gauge Framework for Privacy Auditing of Large Language Models ↗
- 2025Synth-MIA: A Testbed for Auditing Privacy Leakage in Tabular Data Synthesis
- 2024Generated Data with Fake Privacy: Hidden Dangers of Fine-tuning Large Language Models on Generated Data
- 2026Benchmarking Empirical Privacy Protection for Adaptations of Large Language Models