Paper detail

Auditing Privacy in Multi-Tenant RAG under Account Collusion

Multi-tenant retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) services advertise per-account differential privacy as the operative leakage boundary: each account's queries are guaranteed to satisfy $(\varepsilon_{\text{acc}}, δ_{\text{acc}})$-DP with respect to the index. We identify same-index multi-account collusion as a privacy-boundary failure: for $k$ same-tenant accounts coordinating against the tenant's index -- the operative regime -- known DP composition theory implies joint leakage degrades unconditionally at rate $Θ(\sqrt{k} \cdot \varepsilon_{\text{acc}})$ for Gaussian-noised retrieval. Cross-tenant and external collusion match the rate only under explicit access-control failure (M4); without M4 these regimes have zero leakage by design and reduce to an architectural audit, not a DP audit. We exhibit an attack realizing the rate and derive a RAG-specific MIA prediction we test empirically. To make this per-account/joint gap auditable, we design the first audit protocol that operates against unmodified RAG deployments and issues a quantitative $(\textsf{PASS}, \varepsilon_{\text{audit}})$ verdict for the retrieval-score channel -- the noise-then-select step the per-account DP guarantee actually covers -- without index disclosure, pipeline redesign, or model-weight exposure. Generation-channel privacy (LLM output conditioned on selected documents) is a separate audit predicate that should compose with ours; we explicitly scope it out. The protocol composes generic cryptographic primitives (Merkle ledgers, ZK function-application proofs, Gaussian noise attestations) with six RAG-specific primitives (embedder commitment, index-content vector commitment, per-account query ledger, noise-then-select attestation, cross-tenant containment proof, coalition-size estimator) and supports both closed-form audit bounds and Rényi-DP moments-accountant tracking.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.