19 accepted papers
Machine learning models are known to leak sensitive information, as they inevitably memorize (parts of) their training data. More alarmingly, large language models (LLMs) are now trained on nearly all available data, which amplifies the magnitude of information leakage and raises serious privacy ris…
Someone who learns to walk shortest paths in New York can, upon receiving a map of Paris, immediately apply the same rule to navigate, despite never practicing there. This ability to recombine known rules to solve novel problems exemplifies compositional generalization (CG), a hallmark of human cogn…
Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) on pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs) aim at determining if a data point was part of the model’s training set. Prior MIAs that are built for classification models fail at LLMs, due to ignoring the generative nature of LLMs across token sequences. In this pap
As the era of autonomous agents making decisions on behalf of users unfolds, ensuring contextual integrity (CI) -- what is the appropriate information to share while carrying out a certain task -- becomes a central question to the field. We posit that CI demands a form of reasoning where the agent…
How much of my data was used to train a machine learning model? This is a critical question for data owners assessing the risk of unauthorized usage of their data to train models. However, previous work mistakenly treats this as a binary problem—inferring whether all-or-none or any-or-none of the da…
How effectively can LLM-based AI assistants utilize their memory (context) to perform various tasks? Traditional data benchmarks, which are often manually crafted, suffer from several limitations: they are static, susceptible to overfitting, difficult to interpret, and lack actionable insights--fail…
How much information about training samples can be leaked through synthetic data generated by Large Language Models (LLMs)? Overlooking the subtleties of information flow in synthetic data generation pipelines can lead to a false sense of privacy. In this paper, we assume an adversary has access to…
Watermarking is a key technique for detecting AI-generated text. In this work, we study its vulnerabilities and introduce the Smoothing Attack, a novel watermark removal method. By leveraging the relationship between the model’s confidence and watermark detectability, our attack selectively smoothes
Existing efforts on quantifying privacy implications for large language models (LLMs) solely focus on measuring leakage of training data. In this work, we shed light on the often-overlooked interactive settings where an LLM receives information from multiple sources and generates an output to be sha…
We introduce an analytical framework to quantify the changes in a machine learning algorithm's output distribution following the inclusion of a few data points in its training set, a notion we define as leave-one-out distinguishability (LOOD). This is key to measuring data **memorization** and info…
Membership inference attacks aim to detect if a particular data point was used in training a model. We design a novel statistical test to perform robust membership inference attacks (RMIA) with low computational overhead. We achieve this by a fine-grained modeling of the null hypothesis in our likel…
We show that participating in federated learning can be detrimental to group fairness. In fact, the bias of a few parties against under-represented groups (identified by sensitive attributes such as gender or race) can propagate through the network to all the parties in the network. We analyze and e…
We analytically investigate how over-parameterization of models in randomized machine learning algorithms impacts the information leakage about their training data. Specifically, we prove a privacy bound for the KL divergence between model distributions on worst-case neighboring datasets, and explor…
Repeated parameter sharing in federated learning causes significant information leakage about private data, thus defeating its main purpose: data privacy. Mitigating the risk of this information leakage, using state of the art differentially private algorithms, also does not come for free. Randomi…
Differentially private (DP) machine learning algorithms incur many sources of randomness, such as random initialization, random batch subsampling, and shuffling. However, such randomness is difficult to take into account when proving differential privacy bounds because it induces mixture distributio…
Prior work on differential privacy analysis of randomized SGD algorithms relies on composition theorems, where the implicit (unrealistic) assumption is that the internal state of the iterative algorithm is revealed to the adversary. As a result, the R\'enyi DP bounds derived by such composition-base…
The wide adoption and application of Masked language models (MLMs) on sensitive data (from legal to medical) necessitates a thorough quantitative investigation into their privacy vulnerabilities. Prior attempts at measuring leakage of MLMs via membership inference attacks have been inconclusive, imp…
What is the information leakage of an iterative randomized learning algorithm about its training data, when the internal state of the algorithm is \emph{private}? How much is the contribution of each specific training epoch to the information leakage through the released model? We study this problem…
Models leak information about their training data. This enables attackers to infer sensitive information about their training sets, notably determine if a data sample was part of the model’s training set. The existing works empirically show the possibility of these membership inference (tracing) att…