Dataset distillation compresses a large real dataset into a small synthetic one, enabling models trained on the synthetic data to achieve performance comparable to those trained on the real data. Although synthetic datasets are assumed to be privacy-preserving, we show that existing distillation methods can cause severe privacy leakage because synthetic datasets implicitly encode the weight trajectories of the distilled model, they become over-informative and exploitable by adversaries. To expose this risk, we introduce the Information Revelation Attack (IRA) against state-of-the-art distillation techniques. Experiments show that IRA accurately predicts both the distillation algorithm and model architecture, and can successfully infer membership and recover sensitive samples from the real dataset.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The overview of IRA. The victim generates a publicly available synthetic dataset using the distillation algorithm with the victim model and the real dataset. However, with the synthetic dataset, the adversary can reveal the sensitive information by launching IRA.
Symbols
Definitions
V,A
The victim/adversary
f,h
The victim/local model
θ,τ
The weights of the victim/local model
Dreal , Dsyn
The real/synthetic dataset
Daux,Dinv
The auxiliary/inversed dataset
b,c
The membership/target class label
Table 1. Primary Notations.
Figure 2. Architecture Inference Stage. For the AIA, A combines different distillation algorithms γi with model architectures fj to synthesize l synthetic datasets. Then, these synthetic datasets are respectively used to train u×v×l local models to create the set of loss trajectories T . T is then used to train the architecture attack model AA to predict which algorithm and architecture are used for the dataset distillation.
Figure 3. Membership Inference Stage. In the MIA, A trains the membership attack model AM with the outputs from each layer of the local model h to determine the membership of an arbitrary given sample x .
Figure 4. Model Inversion Stage. The framework employs two models ϕ and ψ . ϕ is trained to predict the noise ϵ in the DDPM way, whereas ψ is trained to output the clean image x0 and the coefficient rt with the denoised image x0∗ as the input. The final output of this dual network framework is the combination of their outputs weighted using rt . Notably, except for the first term, the rest of the terms in the loss funcion are used to regularize ψ .
Method
Model Arch.
Test Top-1 Acc. %
MIA BA ↑ /AUC ↑ /T@LF % ↑
AIA Top-1 Acc. % ↑
MIV Atk. Acc. ↑ /KNN Dist ↓
IPC
IPC
IPC
IPC
100
250
500
1000
100
250
500
1000
100
250
500
1000
100
250
500
1000
MTT
ConvNet
58.4
60.4
62.8
63.9
0.77/0.85/12.5
0.81/0.89/21.5
0.81/0.89/20.1
0.82/0.88/19.5
79.1
80.8
80.4
82.1
0.81/682.4
0.83/634.2
0.87/591.2
0.89/574.7
AlexNet
56.7
58.2
60.5
61.3
0.71/0.78/4.6
0.72/0.80/5.9
0.80/0.88/20.2
0.80/0.88/20.2
0.79/653.7
0.82/613.2
0.86/588.2
0.86/572.8
ResNet18
54.6
59.3
63.1
64.3
0.70/0.77/3.2
0.80/0.88/17.2
0.80/0.87/18.2
0.82/0.89/19.9
0.77/758.7
0.81/603.6
0.87/582.3
0.89/552.6
VGG11-BN
57.2
60.7
63.5
65.9
0.77/0.85/11.2
0.79/0.87/14.3
0.81/0.88/16.7
0.89/0.95/53.6
0.81/633.7
0.84/617.8
0.86/599.2
0.89/542.8
Table 2. Evaluation of the IRA on the SOTA Dataset Distillation Algorithms on the CIFAR10 Dataset.
Figure 5. MIV Qualitative Results on CIFAR-10. The upper row are the samples in each class from the real dataset. The bottom row are the synthetic samples generated by the diffusion model.
Figure 6. Log-scale ROC curves for the MIAs on the synthetic CIFAR-10 dataset.
Datasets
W/O Features as Inputs
BA
AUC
T@LF %
CIFAR-10
0.88/0.67
0.94/0.71
53.1/3.3
CIFAR-100
0.74/0.61
0.82/0.63
9.7/0.4
TinyImagenet-200
0.75/0.59
0.83/0.61
9.1/0.1
Table 3. The impact of using the features as the input in the membership inference attack.
Loss Functions
Atk. Acc.
KNN Dist
Lcls
Ltraj
×
×
0.47
1048.3
✓
×
0.91
593.2
×
✓
0.68
832.4
✓
✓
0.94
489.1
Table 4. The impact of the loss functions used in the model inversion attack on the CIFAR-10 synthetic dataset.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7. MIV Qualitative Results on CIFAR-100. Real samples are in the upper part, and their corresponding recovered samples are in the lower part.
Figure 8. The qualitative results of the MIV attack on TinyImagenet-200.
Method
Model Arch.
Test Top-1 Acc %
MIA BA ↑ /AUC ↑ /T@LF % ↑
AIA Top-1 Acc. % ↑
MIV Atk. Acc. ↑ /KNN Dist ↓
IPC
IPC
IPC
IPC
10
25
50
100
10
25
50
100
10
25
50
100
10
25
50
100
MTT
ConvNet
21.5
28.2
34.8
40.5
0.60/0.64/0.6
0.65/0.71/1.8
0.73/0.81/9.5
0.79/0.86/18.9
81.5
83.2
82.7
84.1
0.54/1048.2
0.56/1032.7
0.55/1082.5
0.59/1023.4
AlexNet
20.7
26.3
35.6
38.7
0.63/0.68/0.9
0.68/0.74/1.9
0.77/0.85/10.4
0.77/0.85/16.0
0.55/1103.7
0.55/1079.2
0.56/1043.9
0.58/1037.5
ResNet18
22.4
30.1
33.5
41.9
0.62/0.67/1.1
0.65/0.71/1.3
0.73/0.80/7.4
0.81/0.88/24.8
0.53/1072.4
0.54/1034.0
0.56/1052.1
0.56/1089.2
VGG11-BN
22.5
29.2
36.2
40.7
0.63/0.69/1.4
0.66/0.72/1.9
0.76/0.80/14.1
0.79/0.87/20.9
0.52/1132.1
0.54/1058.6
0.55/1075.2
0.58/1035.2
Appendix
Table 5. Evaluation of the IRA on the SOTA Dataset Distillation Algorithms on the CIFAR-100 Dataset.
Method
Model Arch.
Test Top-1 Acc %
MIA BA ↑ /AUC ↑ /T@LF % ↑
AIA Top-1 Acc % ↑
MIV Atk. Acc. ↑ /KNN Dist. ↓
IPC
IPC
IPC
IPC
10
25
50
10
25
50
10
25
50
10
25
50
MTT
ConvNet
15.3
19.7
21.5
0.65/0.70/0.7
0.68/0.75/1.8
0.71/0.78/3.3
75.2
73.6
77.0
0.32/1359.2
0.34/1344.2
0.36/1306.8
AlexNet
15.1
17.8
19.9
0.63/0.68/1.3
0.66/0.71/1.6
0.70/0.77/2.8
0.33/1382.1
0.35/1363.7
0.35/1327.8
ResNet18
14.7
19.4
22.1
0.62/0.69/0.9
0.68/0.74/2.2
0.71/0.78/3.5
0.32/1402.8
0.34/1352.8
0.35/1323.5
VGG11-BN
15.4
18.6
21.7
0.61/0.66/1.0
0.67/0.74/2.8
0.69/0.75/3.7
0.32/1376.9
0.34/1368.9
0.36/1324.9
Appendix
Table 6. Evaluation of the IRA on the SOTA Dataset Distillation Algorithms on the TinyImageNet-200 Dataset.
Figure 9. Log-scale ROC curves for the MIAs on the synthetic CIFAR-100 dataset. Please zoom in to see the details due to the page limit.
Figure 10. Log-scale ROC curves for the MIAs on the synthetic TinyImagenet-200 dataset. Please zoom in due to the page limit.
Transfer learning is devised to leverage knowledge from pre-trained models to solve new tasks with limited data and computational resources. Meanwhile, dataset distillation has emerged to synthesize a compact dataset that preserves critical information from the original large dataset. Therefore, a combination of transfer learning and dataset distillation offers promising performance in evaluations. However, a non-negligible security threat remains undiscovered in transfer learning using synthetic datasets generated by dataset distillation methods, where an adversary can perform a model hijacking attack with only a few poisoned samples in the synthetic dataset. To reveal this threat, we propose Osmosis Distillation (OD) attack, a novel model hijacking strategy that targets deep learning models using the fewest samples. Comprehensive evaluations on various datasets demonstrate that the OD attack attains high attack success rates in hidden tasks while preserving high model utility in original tasks. Furthermore, the distilled osmosis set enables model hijacking across diverse model architectures, allowing model hijacking in transfer learning with considerable attack performance and model utility. We argue that awareness of using third-party synthetic datasets in transfer learning must be raised.
Yuchen Shi, Huajie Chen, Heng Xu +6
Faculty of Data Science, City University of Macau. · College of Cyber Security, Jinan University. · The University of Sydney.
Tabular data plays an important role in many fields and industries, including those with elevated privacy considerations and risks. As such, there is a rising interest in generating high-quality synthetic proxies for real tabular data as a means of reducing privacy risk and proprietary data exposure. With tabular diffusion models (TDMs) demonstrating leading performance in synthesizing such data, understanding and measuring the privacy risks associated with these models is imperative. Leveraging state-of-the-art membership inference attacks for TDMs in both black- and white-box settings, this work quantifies the impact of training setup, synthesis choices, and attacker knowledge on privacy leakage. Moreover, the results demonstrate that adversaries need not have perfect knowledge of the training setup, identical data distributions, or massive compute resources to construct successful attacks. Finally, the pitfalls associated with applying heuristic privacy metrics, such as distance-to-closest record, are revealed.
Masoumeh Shafieinejad, D. B. Emerson, Behnoosh Zamanlooy +5
Vector Institute · McMaster University · University of Toronto +1
On-policy distillation (OPD) trains a student to match a teacher's next-token distributions on student-generated trajectories. However, privileged information supplied to the teacher for OPD training may contain sensitive data. Whether the student leaks private information about the records supplied to the teacher during distillation remains poorly understood. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first systematic study of membership inference in this setting. We find that fresh student trajectories expose sparse membership signals that fixed reference-answer losses often miss. These signals are mixed with probability changes caused by training on other records. We introduce Leaky, which samples fresh trajectories from the target model and compares its token log-probabilities with the maximum across matched reference models trained without the candidate records. It applies Leaky ReLU to the resulting gaps, preserving positive gaps and downweighting negative gaps as an approximate correction for incidental positive gaps in non-members. Across fifteen targets spanning mathematics, medical question answering, and code generation, Leaky outperforms all evaluated baselines and achieves mean AUROC 0.875, compared with 0.614 for the strongest baseline on each target in the main evaluation. On the same sampled trajectories, the strongest baseline achieves mean AUROC 0.826. These results show that students trained through OPD can expose the membership of records used for teacher supervision, even when fixed reference-answer losses provide little evidence of membership.