The Inadequacy of Similarity-Based Privacy Metrics: Privacy Attacks Against "Truly Anonymous" Synthetic Datasets
Georgi Ganev, Emiliano De Cristofaro
Abstract
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 Recon-Syn, 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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 2be3d474-848d-4eb4-a0c4-b9636eb824bcCited by top-tier papers3
- SMOTE and Mirrors: Exposing Privacy Leakage from Synthetic Minority OversamplingGeorgi Ganev, MohammadReza Nazari, Rees Davison, Amirhassan Fallah Dizche et al.ICLR 2026 · 6 citations
- Systematic Assessment of Tabular Data SynthesisYuntao Du, Ninghui LiCCS 2025 · 2 citations
- When Sample Selection Bias Precipitates Model CollapseXinbao Qiao, Xianglong Du, Wei Liu, Jingqi Zhang et al.ICML 2026
Builds on29
- Deep Learning with Differential PrivacyMartín Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian J. Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan et al.CCS 2016 · 7,620 citations
- Membership Inference Attacks Against Machine Learning ModelsReza Shokri, Marco Stronati, Congzheng Song, Vitaly ShmatikovS&P 2017 · 5,137 citations
- Extracting Training Data from Large Language ModelsNicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski et al.USENIX Security 2021 · 2,866 citations
- Inverting Gradients - How easy is it to break privacy in federated learning?Jonas Geiping, Hartmut Bauermeister, Hannah Dröge, Michael MoellerNeurIPS 2020 · 1,822 citations
- The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural NetworksNicholas Carlini, Chang Liu, Úlfar Erlingsson, Jernej Kos et al.USENIX Security 2019 · 1,386 citations
Related papers
- A Linear Reconstruction Approach for Attribute Inference Attacks against Synthetic DataMeenatchi Sundaram Muthu Selva Annamalai, Andrea Gadotti, Luc RocherUSENIX Security 2024 · 37 citations
- Bounding Training Data Reconstruction in Private (Deep) LearningChuan Guo, Brian Karrer, Kamalika Chaudhuri, Laurens van der MaatenICML 2022 · 66 citations
- "What do you want from theory alone?" Experimenting with Tight Auditing of Differentially Private Synthetic Data GenerationMeenatchi Sundaram Muthu Selva Annamalai, Georgi Ganev, Emiliano De CristofaroUSENIX Security 2024 · 24 citations
- Synthesizing Plausible Privacy-Preserving Location TracesVincent Bindschaedler, Reza ShokriS&P 2016 · 193 citations
- Understanding Disclosure Risk in Differential Privacy with Applications to Noise Calibration and AuditingPatricia Guerra-Balboa, Annika Sauer, Héber Hwang Arcolezi, Thorsten StrufeVLDB 2026
