mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Predicting Privacy Leakage from Weight Spectral Density

arXiv 2609.11780 ↗First posted 10 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.CR cs.NEcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) are widely used to audit the privacy disclosure risk of machine learning models, however current state-of-the-art attacks require training computationally expensive shadow models, making large-scale privacy evaluation impractical. In this work, we investigate whether inexpensive spectral metrics derived from the heavy-tailed self-regularisation framework can serve as proxies for MIA vulnerability. We evaluate several WeightWatcher spectral metrics on image and tabular classification tasks and compare their relationship with MIA privacy leakage against conventional measures of generalisation. Across datasets, stable rank exhibits a strong positive correlation with overall MIA success, while Log alpha-Norm shows a consistent negative correlation with MIA vulnerability at the low false-positive regime. These associations are observed to be stronger than those obtained using the generalisation gap. The results indicate that neural network spectra may contain information about privacy leakage that is not fully captured by conventional measures of overfitting, motivating spectral analysis as a promising direction for scalable privacy auditing.

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 22 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2026.

Builds on

22 of 27 references.

Closest ancestors · 12

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Estimating Model-Level Membership Inference Vulnerability Without Reference Models22 Oct
  2. 2025A hierarchical approach for assessing the vulnerability of tree-based classification models to membership inference attack13 Feb
  3. 2024Free Record-Level Privacy Risk Evaluation Through Artifact-Based Methods8 Nov
  4. 2024Order of Magnitude Speedups for LLM Membership Inference22 Sep
  5. 2024Unveiling the Unseen: Exploring Whitebox Membership Inference through the Lens of Explainability1 Jul
  6. 2024Do Parameters Reveal More than Loss for Membership Inference?17 Jun
  7. 2024OSLO: One-Shot Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks27 May
  8. 2023Low-Cost High-Power Membership Inference Attacks6 Dec
  9. 2023Scalable Membership Inference Attacks via Quantile Regression7 Jul
  10. 2023Gaussian Membership Inference Privacy12 Jun
  11. 2021Membership Inference Attacks From First Principles7 Dec
  12. 2021Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Survey14 Mar

Other references · 10

  1. 2015Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classificationcited by 3,590
  2. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
  3. 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 599
  4. 2018Implicit Self-Regularization in Deep Neural Networks: Evidence from Random Matrix Theory and Implications for Learningcited by 211
  5. 2023Privacy Auditing with One (1) Training Runcited by 119
  6. 2020Predicting trends in the quality of state-of-the-art neural networks without access to training or testing datacited by 113
  7. 2023One-shot Empirical Privacy Estimation for Federated Learningcited by 35
  8. 2025Grokking and Generalization Collapse: Insights from textttHTSR theorycited by 8
  9. 2022GRAIMATTER Green Paper: Recommendations for disclosure control of trained Machine Learning (ML) models from Trusted Research Environments (TREs)cited by 4
  10. 2022Safe machine learning model release from Trusted Research Environments: The SACRO-ML packagecited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.