mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Closed-Form Noise Calibration Against Membership Inference for Random-Allocation DP-SGD

arXiv 2610.09651 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2026cs.LG cs.CRcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

DP-SGD protects training data by adding Gaussian noise to clipped gradients. The amount of noise is usually chosen by running a numerical privacy accountant inside a search. We study DP-SGD with random allocation, where each epoch uses every record once, at a randomly chosen step. For this setting we give a one-line formula that bounds the accuracy of every membership inference attack (MIA) on the trained model. With M steps per epoch, E epochs and noise multiplier σ, and with membership and non-membership equally likely a priori, the attack accuracy is at most frac12+frac14√(1+(e1/σ2-1)/M)E-1. The formula comes from the chi-square divergence between a Gaussian distribution and a Gaussian mixture that dominates random allocation. It is interpretable and gives σ in about a microsecond. Where applicable, our formula needs at most about half the noise of the state-of-the-art closed-form bound. To measure how close the bound is, we also derive an exact expression for the attack accuracy of these two distributions and evaluate it numerically. Calibrating to this exact expression requires 13.0% to 20.2% less noise than the formula in our main experiments, and since it is exact, no accountant that knows only M, E and σ can certify a smaller σ. In training, the resulting σ outperforms the formula and matches a published accountant in test accuracy. It is found in seconds and certified in minutes, whereas every search we ran with that accountant took longer or returned at least 0.62% more noise. We show that MIAs on the trained models stay below the bound.

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 14 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.

Builds on

14 of 74 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2022Optimal Membership Inference Bounds for Adaptive Composition of Sampled Gaussian Mechanisms12 Apr

Other references · 13

  1. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  2. 2021Opacus: User-Friendly Differential Privacy Library in PyTorchcited by 375
  3. 2019Deep Learning with Gaussian Differential Privacycited by 112
  4. 2023Harnessing large-language models to generate private synthetic textcited by 65
  5. 2026Privacy Amplification for BandMF via b-Min-Sep Subsamplingcited by 6
  6. 2025Tighter Privacy Analysis for Truncated Poisson Samplingcited by 5
  7. 2022Shuffle Gaussian Mechanism for Differential Privacycited by 4
  8. 2026Fundamental Limitations of Favorable Privacy-Utility Guarantees for DP-SGDcited by 4
  9. 2026Sampling-Free Privacy Accounting for Matrix Mechanisms under Random Allocationcited by 3
  10. 2019Gaussian Differential Privacycited by 1
  11. 2026Trade-off Functions for DP-SGD with Subsampling based on Random Allocation: Tight Upper and Lower Boundscited by 1
  12. 2026Less Random, More Private: What is the Optimal Subsampling Scheme for DP-SGD?cited by 1
1 more
  1. 2026Rethinking the Security of DP-SGD: A Corrected Analysis of Differentially Private Machine Learningcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.