Membership Inference Attacks Expose Participation Privacy in ECG Foundation Encoders

EEG foundation-model releases are usually audited one endpoint at a time: raw-reconstruction, membership inference, identity linkage, or DP-SGD on the downstream head. We audit the same released embeddings under all four endpoints jointly, on BIOT, LaBraM, and EEGPT, and show that each single-endpoint audit clears releases that still leak spectral attributes. The decisive evidence is a cross-encoder transfer audit: a single ridge attribute decoder learned from one frozen encoder transfers, via a fitted linear bridge, to held-out-subject test splits of every other encoder, with subject-disjoint matched-control 95% CI lower bound at least 0.081 across all six BIOT/LaBraM/EEGPT directions. We prove a sufficient condition: two encoders sharing a nontrivial attribute-coordinate projector overlap beta admit a chained ridge bridge attacker with centered-gain lower bound sqrt(beta/(1+tau^2)) - eps_br - rho_0, and back-solve beta in [0.008, 0.198]. To turn the joint audit into a deployment-readable decision rule we introduce an audit-endpoint disagreement score (AEDS), prove sufficient conditions for its positivity, and bootstrap-calibrate it per cell; AEDS is positive in all eight matched-CI cells (BIOT/LaBraM/EEGPT on EEGMMI; LaBraM on Sleep-EDF, 54-channel LIMO, CHB-MIT pediatric scalp EEG) with p<0.001, while a head-level Carlini LiRA membership audit reaches AUC only 0.50-0.70. Standard defenses fail under audit: a Wiener-style noise-aware adaptive attacker, the LiRA audit, and DP-SGD at every utility-preserving epsilon in {4,8} leave the attribute channel essentially unchanged. The contribution is an audit framework that turns scattered single-endpoint defenses into a joint release decision, supported by a cross-encoder bridge theorem and adaptive-attacker, LiRA, and DP-SGD baselines; the audit licenses release-blocking, not raw-waveform exfiltration or held-out-subject identity recovery.

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) are the standard tool for auditing the privacy risks of machine learning models. Given a query point, an MIA aims to determine whether that point was used to train the target model. In practice, such inference must rely on the statistical signals exposed by the model's outputs, such as confidence scores, logits, and intermediate feature representations. However, existing methods often fail to efficiently summarize and combine these statistical signals. To address this limitation, we propose Pairwise Likelihood MIA (PL-MIA), a unified method that combines a Gaussian likelihood-ratio (GLR) statistic with population calibration and the Cauchy combination test. We characterize theoretically how the GLR retains variance-contraction signals and establish conditions under which population calibration and Cauchy combination improve attack power. We obtain $p$-values from pairwise comparisons between the query point and reference points not used for training, and aggregate these continuous signals using the Cauchy combination test. This preserves the evidence strength that is discarded when each pairwise comparison is reduced to a binary vote. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PL-MIA outperforms strong baselines, improving the true positive rate (TPR) by over 25% in the critical low-false-positive regime, corroborating our theoretical findings. These results demonstrate how statistical principles can turn noisy model outputs into more powerful, calibrated, and reproducible evidence for membership privacy auditing.

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) aim to determine whether a data sample was included in a machine learning (ML) model's training set and have become the de facto standard for measuring privacy leakages in ML. We propose an evaluation framework that defines the conditions under which MIAs constitute a genuine privacy threat, and review representative MIAs against it. We find that, under the realistic conditions defined in our framework, MIAs represent weak privacy threats. Thus, relying on them as a privacy metric in ML can lead to an overestimation of risk and to unnecessary sacrifices in model utility as a consequence of employing too strong defenses.