Adam Smith

Marika Swanberg, Meenatchi Sundaram Muthu Selva Annamalai, Jamie Hayes et al.

Differential Privacy (DP) bounds the privacy leakage of a mechanism against worst-case membership inference, but the precise tradeoff between complex adversarial models and DP protections remains poorly understood. In this paper, we present a unified framework that generalizes the patchwork of existing bounds across membership inference, attribute inference, and data reconstruction attacks. Crucially, our framework is the first to evaluate attacks that target multiple individuals simultaneously and measure success beyond exact matches under a single cohesive bound. Our bounds capture this broad family of previously unexplored attack settings by relying solely on the privacy parameters and the adversary's baseline success rate (i.e. its prior without access to the mechanism's output). To illustrate this, we compare our high-probability guarantees to empirical attacks in two novel settings: extracting multiple non-uniform secrets (passwords and PII) from DP-finetuned language models, and reconstructing tabular data from noisy marginals. Ultimately, this framework provides a rigorous theoretical foundation to investigate the risk landscape of DP algorithms in new adversarial settings.

Róbert István Busa-Fekete, Travis Dick, Claudio Gentile et al.

We propose reconstruction advantage measures to audit label privatization mechanisms. A reconstruction advantage measure quantifies the increase in an attacker's ability to infer the true label of an unlabeled example when provided with a private version of the labels in a dataset (e.g., aggregate of labels from different users or noisy labels output by randomized response), compared to an attacker that only observes the feature vectors, but may have prior knowledge of the correlation between features and labels. We consider two such auditing measures: one additive, and one multiplicative. These incorporate previous approaches taken in the literature on empirical auditing and differential privacy. The measures allow us to place a variety of proposed privatization schemes -- some differentially private, some not -- on the same footing. We analyze these measures theoretically under a distributional model which encapsulates reasonable adversarial settings. We also quantify their behavior empirically on real and simulated prediction tasks. Across a range of experimental settings, we find that differentially private schemes dominate or match the privacy-utility tradeoff of more heuristic approaches.