Georgy Ganev

Sofiane Mahiou, Kai Xu, Georgi Ganev

We propose a general, flexible, and scalable framework dpart, an open source Python library for differentially private synthetic data generation. Central to the approach is autoregressive modelling -- breaking the joint data distribution to a sequence of lower-dimensional conditional distributions, captured by various methods such as machine learning models (logistic/linear regression, decision trees, etc.), simple histogram counts, or custom techniques. The library has been created with a view to serve as a quick and accessible baseline as well as to accommodate a wide audience of users, from those making their first steps in synthetic data generation, to more experienced ones with domain expertise who can configure different aspects of the modelling and contribute new methods/mechanisms. Specific instances of dpart include Independent, an optimized version of PrivBayes, and a newly proposed model, dp-synthpop. Code: https://github.com/hazy/dpart

Lauren Arthur, Jason Costello, Jonathan Hardy et al.

Generative AI technologies are gaining unprecedented popularity, causing a mix of excitement and apprehension through their remarkable capabilities. In this paper, we study the challenges associated with deploying synthetic data, a subfield of Generative AI. Our focus centers on enterprise deployment, with an emphasis on privacy concerns caused by the vast amount of personal and highly sensitive data. We identify 40+ challenges and systematize them into five main groups -- i) generation, ii) infrastructure & architecture, iii) governance, iv) compliance & regulation, and v) adoption. Additionally, we discuss a strategic and systematic approach that enterprises can employ to effectively address the challenges and achieve their goals by establishing trust in the implemented solutions.

Georgi Ganev, Emiliano De Cristofaro

Generative models producing synthetic data are meant to provide a privacy-friendly approach to releasing data. However, their privacy guarantees are only considered robust when models satisfy Differential Privacy (DP). Alas, this is not a ubiquitous standard, as many leading companies (and, in fact, research papers) use ad-hoc privacy metrics based on testing the statistical similarity between synthetic and real data. In this paper, we examine the privacy metrics used in real-world synthetic data deployments and demonstrate their unreliability in several ways. First, we provide counter-examples where severe privacy violations occur even if the privacy tests pass and instantiate accurate membership and attribute inference attacks with minimal cost. We then introduce ReconSyn, a reconstruction attack that generates multiple synthetic datasets that are considered private by the metrics but actually leak information unique to individual records. We show that ReconSyn recovers 78-100% of the outliers in the train data with only black-box access to a single fitted generative model and the privacy metrics. In the process, we show that applying DP only to the model does not mitigate this attack, as using privacy metrics breaks the end-to-end DP pipeline.

Zexi Yao, Nataša Krčo, Georgi Ganev et al.

Synthetic data has become an increasingly popular way to share data without revealing sensitive information. Though Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) are widely considered the gold standard for empirically assessing the privacy of a synthetic dataset, practitioners and researchers often rely on simpler proxy metrics such as Distance to Closest Record (DCR). These metrics estimate privacy by measuring the similarity between the training data and generated synthetic data. This similarity is also compared against that between the training data and a disjoint holdout set of real records to construct a binary privacy test. If the synthetic data is not more similar to the training data than the holdout set is, it passes the test and is considered private. In this work we show that, while computationally inexpensive, DCR and other distance-based metrics fail to identify privacy leakage. Across multiple datasets and both classical models such as Baynet and CTGAN and more recent diffusion models, we show that datasets deemed private by proxy metrics are highly vulnerable to MIAs. We similarly find both the binary privacy test and the continuous measure based on these metrics to be uninformative of actual membership inference risk. We further show that these failures are consistent across different metric hyperparameter settings and record selection methods. Finally, we argue DCR and other distance-based metrics to be flawed by design and show a example of a simple leakage they miss in practice. With this work, we hope to motivate practitioners to move away from proxy metrics to MIAs as the rigorous, comprehensive standard of evaluating privacy of synthetic data, in particular to make claims of datasets being legally anonymous.

Georgi Ganev, Meenatchi Sundaram Muthu Selva Annamalai, Sofiane Mahiou et al.

Privacy attacks, particularly membership inference attacks (MIAs), are widely used to assess the privacy of generative models for tabular synthetic data, including those with Differential Privacy (DP) guarantees. These attacks often exploit outliers, which are especially vulnerable due to their position at the boundaries of the data domain (e.g., at the minimum and maximum values). However, the role of data domain extraction in generative models and its impact on privacy attacks have been overlooked. In this paper, we examine three strategies for defining the data domain: assuming it is externally provided (ideally from public data), extracting it directly from the input data, and extracting it with DP mechanisms. While common in popular implementations and libraries, we show that the second approach breaks end-to-end DP guarantees and leaves models vulnerable. While using a provided domain (if representative) is preferable, extracting it with DP can also defend against popular MIAs, even at high privacy budgets.

Georgi Ganev, Kai Xu, Emiliano De Cristofaro

Generative models trained with Differential Privacy (DP) can produce synthetic data while reducing privacy risks. However, navigating their privacy-utility tradeoffs makes finding the best models for specific settings/tasks challenging. This paper bridges this gap by profiling how DP generative models for tabular data distribute privacy budgets across rows and columns, which is one of the primary sources of utility degradation. We compare graphical and deep generative models, focusing on the key factors contributing to how privacy budgets are spent, i.e., underlying modeling techniques, DP mechanisms, and data dimensionality. Through our measurement study, we shed light on the characteristics that make different models suitable for various settings and tasks. For instance, we find that graphical models distribute privacy budgets horizontally and thus cannot handle relatively wide datasets for a fixed training time; also, the performance on the task they were optimized for monotonically increases with more data but could also overfit. Deep generative models spend their budgets per iteration, so their behavior is less predictable with varying dataset dimensions, but are more flexible as they could perform better if trained on more features. Moreover, low levels of privacy ($ε\geq100$) could help some models generalize, achieving better results than without applying DP. We believe our work will aid the deployment of DP synthetic data techniques by navigating through the best candidate models vis-a-vis the dataset features, desired privacy levels, and downstream tasks.

Georgi Ganev, Bristena Oprisanu, Emiliano De Cristofaro

Generative models trained with Differential Privacy (DP) can be used to generate synthetic data while minimizing privacy risks. We analyze the impact of DP on these models vis-a-vis underrepresented classes/subgroups of data, specifically, studying: 1) the size of classes/subgroups in the synthetic data, and 2) the accuracy of classification tasks run on them. We also evaluate the effect of various levels of imbalance and privacy budgets. Our analysis uses three state-of-the-art DP models (PrivBayes, DP-WGAN, and PATE-GAN) and shows that DP yields opposite size distributions in the generated synthetic data. It affects the gap between the majority and minority classes/subgroups; in some cases by reducing it (a "Robin Hood" effect) and, in others, by increasing it (a "Matthew" effect). Either way, this leads to (similar) disparate impacts on the accuracy of classification tasks on the synthetic data, affecting disproportionately more the underrepresented subparts of the data. Consequently, when training models on synthetic data, one might incur the risk of treating different subpopulations unevenly, leading to unreliable or unfair conclusions.

Bristena Oprisanu, Georgi Ganev, Emiliano De Cristofaro

The availability of genomic data is essential to progress in biomedical research, personalized medicine, etc. However, its extreme sensitivity makes it problematic, if not outright impossible, to publish or share it. As a result, several initiatives have been launched to experiment with synthetic genomic data, e.g., using generative models to learn the underlying distribution of the real data and generate artificial datasets that preserve its salient characteristics without exposing it. This paper provides the first evaluation of both utility and privacy protection of six state-of-the-art models for generating synthetic genomic data. We assess the performance of the synthetic data on several common tasks, such as allele population statistics and linkage disequilibrium. We then measure privacy through the lens of membership inference attacks, i.e., inferring whether a record was part of the training data. Our experiments show that no single approach to generate synthetic genomic data yields both high utility and strong privacy across the board. Also, the size and nature of the training dataset matter. Moreover, while some combinations of datasets and models produce synthetic data with distributions close to the real data, there often are target data points that are vulnerable to membership inference. Looking forward, our techniques can be used by practitioners to assess the risks of deploying synthetic genomic data in the wild and serve as a benchmark for future work.