Quantifying the Privacy of Counterfactuals by Leveraging Membership Inference Attacks Against Synthetic Data

The rapid adoption of generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in synthetic data as a privacy-preserving alternative to sensitive real-world datasets. However, generating high-utility synthetic data often carries the risk of memorizing and regurgitating private information from the training corpus. In this work, we present a customizable empirical auditing framework designed to detect and explain such data disclosures. Our framework introduces a mechanism to distinguish between "true disclosures"-where the system directly reproduces a user's information-and "phantom disclosures''-where the system incidentally generates a user's data. By partitioning input data into training and holdout sets and applying rigorous statistical hypothesis testing, we determine if observed disclosures are consistent with strict privacy baselines, such as zero-learning or specific Differential Privacy (DP) bounds. Crucially, this approach requires no model access, no canary insertion, and no reference model training -only the synthetic output and a held-out control set. We demonstrate that this framework effectively functions as a membership inference attack, providing empirical lower bounds on privacy leakage that are tighter than prior data-based auditing methods. Our approach is model-agnostic, applies to any synthetic data generation mechanism, and requires orders of magnitude fewer computational resources than shadow-model or canary-based alternatives.

Tabular data sharing under privacy constraints is increasingly important for research and collaboration. Synthetic data generators (SDGs) are a promising solution, but synthetic data remains vulnerable to attacks, such as membership inference attacks (MIAs), which aim to determine whether a specific record was part of the training data. State-of-the-art MIAs are powerful but impractical: they rely on shadow modeling, requiring hundreds of SDG training runs, and need auxiliary data several times larger than the original training set. Fast proxy metrics like distance to closest record (DCR) are efficient but have limited sensitivity to MIA risk. We introduce ReMIA (Relative Membership Inference Attack), a practical privacy metric that requires only two SDG training runs and additional data no larger than the original training set. Rather than predicting whether a record was in the training set, ReMIA generates two synthetic datasets from two source datasets and measures whether a classifier can identify which source a record came from. Experiments across multiple tabular datasets and SDGs show that ReMIA has a sensitivity comparable to state-of-the-art MIAs while being substantially more practical. We further observe that SDGs can achieve privacy-utility trade-offs that traditional noise-based anonymization methods do not match. Code is available at https://github.com/aindo-com/remia.

Synthetic data releases are increasingly proposed in the literature as a means of sharing realistic data replicas in lieu of sensitive private datasets. Even when the worst-case privacy leakage of such releases is bounded by means of differential privacy (DP), in practice a residual risk remains. Membership inference attack (MIA) audits are conducted to empirically quantify this risk. However, existing methods only measure average-case risk for randomly drawn records, which might conceal the risk to vulnerable subgroups. To highlight this issue, we define a subgroup-targeted membership inference game in which the target pool is an explicit parameter, and instantiate it with an audit of 32 proxies under three scenarios with different levels of attacker knowledge, across four datasets, three generators (DP-SGD fine-tuning, API-based prompting, and activation steering), and five privacy budgets. The audit shows that synthetic releases leak subgroup membership and that prior attacks systematically underestimate this leakage. DP is effective at the aggregate level: it substantially reduces average leakage at every budget we test. Three observations temper this picture. First, the remaining leakage is concentrated rather than spread out: under DP, a tenth of the records carries roughly 40% of it. Second, the protection DP delivers in practice is uneven: within its worst-case guarantee, the noise removes more of the measured leakage from random records than from high-risk ones---and a merged-pool audit that scores both record types against shared negatives confirms this at the record level. Third, \emph{which} records leak proves to be a property of the release mechanism rather than of the record alone, so record-level risk cannot be assessed independently of the release.