Paper detail

Modelling and Quantifying Membership Information Leakage in Machine Learning

Machine learning models have been shown to be vulnerable to membership inference attacks, i.e., inferring whether individuals' data have been used for training models. The lack of understanding about factors contributing success of these attacks motivates the need for modelling membership information leakage using information theory and for investigating properties of machine learning models and training algorithms that can reduce membership information leakage. We use conditional mutual information leakage to measure the amount of information leakage from the trained machine learning model about the presence of an individual in the training dataset. We devise an upper bound for this measure of information leakage using Kullback--Leibler divergence that is more amenable to numerical computation. We prove a direct relationship between the Kullback--Leibler membership information leakage and the probability of success for a hypothesis-testing adversary examining whether a particular data record belongs to the training dataset of a machine learning model. We show that the mutual information leakage is a decreasing function of the training dataset size and the regularization weight. We also prove that, if the sensitivity of the machine learning model (defined in terms of the derivatives of the fitness with respect to model parameters) is high, more membership information is potentially leaked. This illustrates that complex models, such as deep neural networks, are more susceptible to membership inference attacks in comparison to simpler models with fewer degrees of freedom. We show that the amount of the membership information leakage is reduced by $\mathcal{O}(\log^{1/2}(δ^{-1})ε^{-1})$ when using Gaussian $(ε,δ)$-differentially-private additive noises.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.