cs.LGJun 24, 2026

Dataset Usage Inference without Shadow Models or Held-out Data

Authors: Wojciech ŁapaczStanisław PawlakJan DubińskiFranziska BoenischAdam Dziedzic

Organizations: Warsaw University of Technology · CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Abstract

How much of my data was used to train a machine learning model? Dataset Usage Inference (DUI) aims to answer this by estimating what fraction of a dataset contributed to a model's training. However, existing DUI methods rely on assumptions that rarely hold in practice: they require training expensive shadow models to imitate the target model, and they assume access to both known training samples and an in-distribution held-out set confirmed to be absent from training. These conditions make current approaches impractical for modern large models and real data ownership disputes. We introduce a practical DUI framework that removes these constraints. Our method requires neither shadow models nor real held-out data. Instead, it generates synthetic non-member samples, extracts diverse membership signals, and casts DUI as a mixture proportion estimation problem to estimate what share of the candidate dataset was used during training. Experiments on large image generative models show that our method reliably quantifies dataset usage, providing a practical tool for data owners to determine how much of their data was used to train a model.

Explore similar work

Jul 1, 2026cs.LG

Watermarking for Proprietary Dataset Protection

A growing body of literature suggests that training data membership inference problems are fundamentally hard tasks in modern language modeling settings. We argue that output watermarking techniques are the right gadget to make training membership tests for generative models more tractable, based on prior results showing that language models exhibit residual watermark "radioactivity" under partially watermarked training datasets. We pit a watermark-based dataset inference approach head-to-head against traditional loss-based membership inference methods and show that watermarking can achieve comparable membership detection performance when subset exposure is high enough, under an alternate set of assumptions.
John Kirchenbauer, Brian R. Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura +1
Jun 22, 2026cs.LG

MGI: Member vs Generated Inference

As generative models increasingly produce samples that are indistinguishable from human-created content, it becomes difficult to determine whether a given data point was part of a model's natural training set or was generated by the model itself, especially when models memorize and reproduce training data. We formalize this challenge as Member vs Generated Inference (MGI): given a sample and a target generative model, infer whether the sample is a true training member or a generated output of that model. Focusing on image generation, we show that existing membership inference methods systematically misclassify generated samples as training members, while attribution-based methods often misclassify true members as generated. This failure arises because both approaches rely on likelihood-related signals that are similarly elevated for training examples and for the model's own outputs. To address MGI, we propose Data Circuit Breaker (DCB), a three-stage method that combines complementary signals from a generative model's autoencoder and latent generator to distinguish training members from generated samples. Across multiple generative models, including image autoregressive and diffusion models, DCB consistently addresses the shortcomings of membership inference and attribution methods, remains effective even when models reproduce near-duplicates of training samples, and generalizes to challenging model derivative settings in which new models are trained on generated data.
Bihe Zhao, Michel Meintz, Juangui Xu +2
May 28, 2026cs.LG

idSCD: Identifying Training Datasets through Semantic Correlation Descriptors

Can a dataset be recognized from the spurious correlations it induces during training? We argue that datasets leave dataset-specific traces in a model's learned semantic correlation structure: incidental regularities that are predictive within a dataset, but not causal for the underlying task, can be internalized during training. We use this insight to study dataset-level membership inference, moving beyond existing methods that rely on behavioral or distributional evidence such as confidence scores, losses, margins, generated samples, or query responses. We introduce a white-box semantic fingerprinting approach based on semantic correlation descriptors (SCDs), which capture the semantic correlation structure learned by a model and make it comparable across dataset mixtures. In a controlled leave-one-dataset-out diagnostic, SCDs recover dataset-specific changes and perfectly separate matching from non-matching dataset pairs. We then propose a practical SCD-based membership score that tests whether a target dataset is part of a model's training mixture using only the model's SCD and the target dataset's standalone SCD, without requiring leave-one-dataset-out models. Across three diverse experimental settings, with dataset groups for natural language inference, emotion classification, and medical text classification, we test both the advantages and limitations of SCD-based membership inference with different degrees of semantic separation and keyword support between dataset splits. On average, the classifier based on this score achieves the highest performance and the lowest std, outperforming black-box baselines RMIA, Attack-P, and LiRA, as well as the white-box SIF baseline. These results show that dataset membership can be traced through internal semantic correlations, with the largest relative gain exceeding 60% in ROC-AUC when dataset groups expose distinct semantic particularities.
Andrada Gobeaja, Ionut Hodoroaga, Elena Burceanu +1