Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and diffusion models have emerged as leading approaches for high-quality image synthesis. While both can be trained under differential privacy (DP) to protect sensitive data, their sensitivity to membership inference attacks (MIAs), a key threat to data confidentiality, remains poorly understood. In this work, we present the first unified theoretical and empirical analysis of the privacy risks faced by differentially private generative models. We begin by showing, through a stability-based analysis, that GANs exhibit fundamentally lower sensitivity to data perturbations than diffusion models, suggesting a structural advantage in resisting MIAs. We then validate this insight with a comprehensive empirical study using a standardized MIA pipeline to evaluate privacy leakage across datasets and privacy budgets. Our results consistently reveal a marked privacy robustness gap in favor of GANs, even in strong DP regimes, highlighting that model type alone can critically shape privacy leakage.

In the current era of big data and machine learning, it's essential to find ways to shrink the size of training dataset while preserving the training performance to improve efficiency. However, the challenge behind it includes providing practical ways to find points that can be deleted without significantly harming the training result and suffering from problems like underfitting. We therefore present the perfect deleted point problem for 1-step noisy SGD in the classical linear regression task, which aims to find the perfect deleted point in the training dataset such that the model resulted from the deleted dataset will be identical to the one trained without deleting it. We apply the so-called signal-to-noise ratio and suggest that its value is closely related to the selection of the perfect deleted point. We also implement an algorithm based on this and empirically show the effectiveness of it in a synthetic dataset. Finally we analyze the consequences of the perfect deleted point, specifically how it affects the training performance and privacy budget, therefore highlighting its potential. This research underscores the importance of data deletion and calls for urgent need for more studies in this field.

Training machine learning models on privacy-sensitive data has become a popular practice, driving innovation in ever-expanding fields. This has opened the door to new attacks that can have serious privacy implications. One such attack, the Membership Inference Attack (MIA), exposes whether or not a particular data point was used to train a model. A growing body of literature uses Differentially Private (DP) training algorithms as a defence against such attacks. However, these works evaluate the defence under the restrictive assumption that all members of the training set, as well as non-members, are independent and identically distributed. This assumption does not hold for many real-world use cases in the literature. Motivated by this, we evaluate membership inference with statistical dependencies among samples and explain why DP does not provide meaningful protection (the privacy parameter $\epsilon$ scales with the training set size $n$) in this more general case. We conduct a series of empirical evaluations with off-the-shelf MIAs using training sets built from real-world data showing different types of dependencies among samples. Our results reveal that training set dependencies can severely increase the performance of MIAs, and therefore assuming that data samples are statistically independent can significantly underestimate the performance of MIAs.

Is overparameterization a privacy liability? In this work, we study the effect that the number of parameters has on a classifier's vulnerability to membership inference attacks. We first demonstrate how the number of parameters of a model can induce a privacy--utility trade-off: increasing the number of parameters generally improves generalization performance at the expense of lower privacy. However, remarkably, we then show that if coupled with proper regularization, increasing the number of parameters of a model can actually simultaneously increase both its privacy and performance, thereby eliminating the privacy--utility trade-off. Theoretically, we demonstrate this curious phenomenon for logistic regression with ridge regularization in a bi-level feature ensemble setting. Pursuant to our theoretical exploration, we develop a novel leave-one-out analysis tool to precisely characterize the vulnerability of a linear classifier to the optimal membership inference attack. We empirically exhibit this "blessing of dimensionality" for neural networks on a variety of tasks using early stopping as the regularizer.

Generative machine learning models are being increasingly viewed as a way to share sensitive data between institutions. While there has been work on developing differentially private generative modeling approaches, these approaches generally lead to sub-par sample quality, limiting their use in real world applications. Another line of work has focused on developing generative models which lead to higher quality samples but currently lack any formal privacy guarantees. In this work, we propose the first formal framework for membership privacy estimation in generative models. We formulate the membership privacy risk as a statistical divergence between training samples and hold-out samples, and propose sample-based methods to estimate this divergence. Compared to previous works, our framework makes more realistic and flexible assumptions. First, we offer a generalizable metric as an alternative to the accuracy metric especially for imbalanced datasets. Second, we loosen the assumption of having full access to the underlying distribution from previous studies , and propose sample-based estimations with theoretical guarantees. Third, along with the population-level membership privacy risk estimation via the optimal membership advantage, we offer the individual-level estimation via the individual privacy risk. Fourth, our framework allows adversaries to access the trained model via a customized query, while prior works require specific attributes.

A surprising phenomenon in modern machine learning is the ability of a highly overparameterized model to generalize well (small error on the test data) even when it is trained to memorize the training data (zero error on the training data). This has led to an arms race towards increasingly overparameterized models (c.f., deep learning). In this paper, we study an underexplored hidden cost of overparameterization: the fact that overparameterized models are more vulnerable to privacy attacks, in particular the membership inference attack that predicts the (potentially sensitive) examples used to train a model. We significantly extend the relatively few empirical results on this problem by theoretically proving for an overparameterized linear regression model with Gaussian data that the membership inference vulnerability increases with the number of parameters. Moreover, a range of empirical studies indicates that more complex, nonlinear models exhibit the same behavior. Finally, we study different methods for mitigating such attacks in the overparameterized regime, such as noise addition and regularization, and conclude that simply reducing the parameters of an overparameterized model is an effective strategy to protect it from membership inference without greatly decreasing its generalization error.

Machine learning algorithms, when applied to sensitive data, pose a distinct threat to privacy. A growing body of prior work demonstrates that models produced by these algorithms may leak specific private information in the training data to an attacker, either through the models' structure or their observable behavior. However, the underlying cause of this privacy risk is not well understood beyond a handful of anecdotal accounts that suggest overfitting and influence might play a role. This paper examines the effect that overfitting and influence have on the ability of an attacker to learn information about the training data from machine learning models, either through training set membership inference or attribute inference attacks. Using both formal and empirical analyses, we illustrate a clear relationship between these factors and the privacy risk that arises in several popular machine learning algorithms. We find that overfitting is sufficient to allow an attacker to perform membership inference and, when the target attribute meets certain conditions about its influence, attribute inference attacks. Interestingly, our formal analysis also shows that overfitting is not necessary for these attacks and begins to shed light on what other factors may be in play. Finally, we explore the connection between membership inference and attribute inference, showing that there are deep connections between the two that lead to effective new attacks.