The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in the real world has come with a rise in copyright cases against companies for training their models on unlicensed data from the internet. Recent works have presented methods to identify if individual text sequences were members of the model's training data, known as membership inference attacks (MIAs). We demonstrate that the apparent success of these MIAs is confounded by selecting non-members (text sequences not used for training) belonging to a different distribution from the members (e.g., temporally shifted recent Wikipedia articles compared with ones used to train the model). This distribution shift makes membership inference appear successful. However, most MIA methods perform no better than random guessing when discriminating between members and non-members from the same distribution (e.g., in this case, the same period of time). Even when MIAs work, we find that different MIAs succeed at inferring membership of samples from different distributions. Instead, we propose a new dataset inference method to accurately identify the datasets used to train large language models. This paradigm sits realistically in the modern-day copyright landscape, where authors claim that an LLM is trained over multiple documents (such as a book) written by them, rather than one particular paragraph. While dataset inference shares many of the challenges of membership inference, we solve it by selectively combining the MIAs that provide positive signal for a given distribution, and aggregating them to perform a statistical test on a given dataset. Our approach successfully distinguishes the train and test sets of different subsets of the Pile with statistically significant p-values < 0.1, without any false positives.

Differentially private stochastic gradient descent (DP-SGD) is the canonical approach to private deep learning. While the current privacy analysis of DP-SGD is known to be tight in some settings, several empirical results suggest that models trained on common benchmark datasets leak significantly less privacy for many datapoints. Yet, despite past attempts, a rigorous explanation for why this is the case has not been reached. Is it because there exist tighter privacy upper bounds when restricted to these dataset settings, or are our attacks not strong enough for certain datapoints? In this paper, we provide the first per-instance (i.e., ``data-dependent") DP analysis of DP-SGD. Our analysis captures the intuition that points with similar neighbors in the dataset enjoy better data-dependent privacy than outliers. Formally, this is done by modifying the per-step privacy analysis of DP-SGD to introduce a dependence on the distribution of model updates computed from a training dataset. We further develop a new composition theorem to effectively use this new per-step analysis to reason about an entire training run. Put all together, our evaluation shows that this novel DP-SGD analysis allows us to now formally show that DP-SGD leaks significantly less privacy for many datapoints (when trained on common benchmarks) than the current data-independent guarantee. This implies privacy attacks will necessarily fail against many datapoints if the adversary does not have sufficient control over the possible training datasets.

Proof-of-Learning (PoL) proposes that a model owner logs training checkpoints to establish a proof of having expended the computation necessary for training. The authors of PoL forego cryptographic approaches and trade rigorous security guarantees for scalability to deep learning. They empirically argued the benefit of this approach by showing how spoofing--computing a proof for a stolen model--is as expensive as obtaining the proof honestly by training the model. However, recent work has provided a counter-example and thus has invalidated this observation. In this work we demonstrate, first, that while it is true that current PoL verification is not robust to adversaries, recent work has largely underestimated this lack of robustness. This is because existing spoofing strategies are either unreproducible or target weakened instantiations of PoL--meaning they are easily thwarted by changing hyperparameters of the verification. Instead, we introduce the first spoofing strategies that can be reproduced across different configurations of the PoL verification and can be done for a fraction of the cost of previous spoofing strategies. This is possible because we identify key vulnerabilities of PoL and systematically analyze the underlying assumptions needed for robust verification of a proof. On the theoretical side, we show how realizing these assumptions reduces to open problems in learning theory.We conclude that one cannot develop a provably robust PoL verification mechanism without further understanding of optimization in deep learning.

Machine unlearning, i.e. having a model forget about some of its training data, has become increasingly more important as privacy legislation promotes variants of the right-to-be-forgotten. In the context of deep learning, approaches for machine unlearning are broadly categorized into two classes: exact unlearning methods, where an entity has formally removed the data point's impact on the model by retraining the model from scratch, and approximate unlearning, where an entity approximates the model parameters one would obtain by exact unlearning to save on compute costs. In this paper we first show that the definition that underlies approximate unlearning, which seeks to prove the approximately unlearned model is close to an exactly retrained model, is incorrect because one can obtain the same model using different datasets. Thus one could unlearn without modifying the model at all. We then turn to exact unlearning approaches and ask how to verify their claims of unlearning. Our results show that even for a given training trajectory one cannot formally prove the absence of certain data points used during training. We thus conclude that unlearning is only well-defined at the algorithmic level, where an entity's only possible auditable claim to unlearning is that they used a particular algorithm designed to allow for external scrutiny during an audit.

Training machine learning (ML) models typically involves expensive iterative optimization. Once the model's final parameters are released, there is currently no mechanism for the entity which trained the model to prove that these parameters were indeed the result of this optimization procedure. Such a mechanism would support security of ML applications in several ways. For instance, it would simplify ownership resolution when multiple parties contest ownership of a specific model. It would also facilitate the distributed training across untrusted workers where Byzantine workers might otherwise mount a denial-of-service by returning incorrect model updates. In this paper, we remediate this problem by introducing the concept of proof-of-learning in ML. Inspired by research on both proof-of-work and verified computations, we observe how a seminal training algorithm, stochastic gradient descent, accumulates secret information due to its stochasticity. This produces a natural construction for a proof-of-learning which demonstrates that a party has expended the compute require to obtain a set of model parameters correctly. In particular, our analyses and experiments show that an adversary seeking to illegitimately manufacture a proof-of-learning needs to perform *at least* as much work than is needed for gradient descent itself. We also instantiate a concrete proof-of-learning mechanism in both of the scenarios described above. In model ownership resolution, it protects the intellectual property of models released publicly. In distributed training, it preserves availability of the training procedure. Our empirical evaluation validates that our proof-of-learning mechanism is robust to variance induced by the hardware (ML accelerators) and software stacks.