Auditing Private Prediction
Karan Chadha, Matthew Jagielski, Nicolas Papernot, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Milad Nasr
Abstract
Differential privacy (DP) offers a theoretical upper bound on the potential privacy leakage of an algorithm, while empirical auditing establishes a practical lower bound. Auditing techniques exist for DP training algorithms. However machine learning can also be made private at inference. We propose the first framework for auditing private prediction where we instantiate adversaries with varying poisoning and query capabilities. This enables us to study the privacy leakage of four private prediction algorithms: PATE [Papernot et al., 2016] , CaPC [Choquette-Choo et al., 2020] , PromptPATE [Duan et al., 2023], and Private-kNN [Zhu et al., 2020] . To conduct our audit, we introduce novel techniques to empirically evaluate privacy leakage in terms of Renyi DP. Our experiments show that (i) the privacy analysis of private prediction can be improved, (ii) algorithms which are easier to poison lead to much higher privacy leakage, and (iii) the privacy leakage is significantly lower for adversaries without query control than those with full control. * Part of this work was done during a Google DeepMind internship. 1 An arbitrary function can be applied to the outputs of a DP algorithm with no consequences to privacy.
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 7cc3c819-a100-42dd-9cd9-600a9da47b92Builds on26
- An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at ScaleAlexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn et al.ICLR 2021 · 21,477 citations
- Deep Learning with Differential PrivacyMartín Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian J. Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan et al.CCS 2016 · 7,620 citations
- Extracting Training Data from Large Language ModelsNicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski et al.USENIX Security 2021 · 2,866 citations
- Label-Only Membership Inference AttacksChristopher A. Choquette-Choo, Florian Tramèr, Nicholas Carlini, Nicolas PapernotICML 2021 · 628 citations
- Auditing Differentially Private Machine Learning: How Private is Private SGD?Matthew Jagielski, Jonathan R. Ullman, Alina OpreaNeurIPS 2020 · 354 citations
Related papers
- A General Framework for Auditing Differentially Private Machine LearningFred Lu, Joseph Munoz, Maya Fuchs, Tyler LeBlond et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 57 citations
- Adversary Instantiation: Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Machine LearningMilad Nasr, Shuang Song, Abhradeep Thakurta, Nicolas Papernot et al.S&P 2021 · 288 citations
- Tighter Privacy Auditing of DP-SGD in the Hidden State Threat ModelTudor Ioan Cebere, Aurélien Bellet, Nicolas PapernotICLR 2025 · 1 citation
- To Shuffle or not to Shuffle: Auditing DP-SGD with ShufflingMeenatchi Sundaram Muthu Selva Annamalai, Borja Balle, Jamie Hayes, Emiliano De CristofaroNDSS 2026 · 11 citations
- Auditing Privacy Mechanisms via Label Inference AttacksRóbert Busa-Fekete, Travis Dick, Claudio Gentile, Andrés Muñoz Medina et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 3 citations
