Jun 2026· arXiv.org· Vol abs/2606.08372· 0 citations· 99 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
The choice of SDG method governs risk far more than the choice of attack; differential privacy reduces reconstruction steadily up to epsilon approximately 10, above which reconstruction risk levels off for all six DP mechanisms; de-identification methods are the most exposed, with diffusion the only synthesizer close behind.
Abstract
Synthetic data is increasingly promoted as a privacy-preserving substitute for releasing sensitive tabular records, yet its central adversarial threat (reconstruction, the recovery of an individual's hidden attribute values from a synthetic release and a handful of known quasi-identifiers) has been studied only in scattered, hard-to-compare settings. We systematize reconstruction (equivalently, attribute inference) attacks on de-identified and synthetic tabular data. We contribute a taxonomy that organizes attacks by the structure they exploit; a broad, controlled empirical evaluation, pitting fourteen attacks against thirteen synthetic data generation (SDG) methods across five benchmark datasets; and a set of new attacks that fill gaps in the taxonomy, one of which (CoBP-RA) is the strongest attack we measure. We also introduce a methodology for interpreting what attack success means: a memorization test that distinguishes reconstruction of the population distribution from memorization of training records, and a reduction that places reconstruction and membership inference on a single comparable scale. Our findings: the choice of SDG method governs risk far more than the choice of attack; differential privacy reduces reconstruction steadily up to epsilon approximately 10, above which reconstruction risk levels off for all six DP mechanisms we sweep, bounded by what each synthesizer can represent rather than by its noise; de-identification methods are the most exposed, with diffusion the only synthesizer close behind; and most reconstruction reflects distributional structure rather than memorization, concentrating individual risk on atypical records. Our attacks and infrastructure are externally validated by our first-place finish in the 2025 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Collaborative Research Cycle.
This paper investigates developing real-world perception for active agents, proposes Gibson Environment for this purpose, and showcases a set of perceptual tasks learned therein.
F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He et al.· 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on...· 1,069 citations· ⚡112
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...
Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 302 citations· ⚡60
An algorithm is proposed which leverages disentangled semantic factors to generate adversarial perturbation by altering controlled semantic attributes to fool the learner towards various "adversarial" targets.
Haonan Qiu, Chaowei Xiao, Lei Yang et al.· arXiv.org· 208 citations· ⚡17
This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.