Membership inference attacks (MIAs) are used to test practical privacy of machine learning models. MIAs complement formal guarantees from differential privacy (DP) under a more realistic adversary model. We analyse MIA vulnerability of fine-tuned neural networks both empirically and theoretically, the latter using a simplified model of fine-tuning. We show that the vulnerability of non-DP models when measured as the attacker advantage at a fixed false positive rate reduces according to a simple power law as the number of examples per class increases. A similar power-law applies even for the most vulnerable points, but the dataset size needed for adequate protection of the most vulnerable points is very large.

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) are widely used to empirically assess the privacy risks of samples used to train a target machine learning model. State-of-the-art methods however require training hundreds of shadow models, with the same size and architecture of the target model, solely to evaluate the privacy risk. While one might be able to afford this for small models, the cost often becomes prohibitive for medium and large models. We here instead propose a novel approach to identify the at-risk samples using only artifacts available during training, with little to no additional computational overhead. Our method analyzes individual per-sample loss traces and uses them to identify the vulnerable data samples. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our artifact-based approach through experiments on the CIFAR10 dataset, showing high precision in identifying vulnerable samples as determined by a SOTA shadow model-based MIA (LiRA). Impressively, our method reaches the same precision as another SOTA MIA when measured against LiRA, despite it being orders of magnitude cheaper. We then show LT-IQR to outperform alternative loss aggregation methods, perform ablation studies on hyperparameters, and validate the robustness of our method to the target metric. Finally, we study the evolution of the vulnerability score distribution throughout training as a metric for model-level risk assessment.