Skip to content

Closed-Form Noise Calibration Against Membership Inference for Random-Allocation DP-SGD

Oct 2026 · 0 citations · 74 references
Computer Science

Abstract

DP-SGD protects training data by adding Gaussian noise to clipped gradients. The amount of noise is usually chosen by running a numerical privacy accountant inside a search. We study DP-SGD with random allocation, where each epoch uses every record once, at a randomly chosen step. For this setting we give a one-line formula that bounds the accuracy of every membership inference attack (MIA) on the trained model. With $M$ steps per epoch, $E$ epochs and noise multiplier $\sigma$, and with membership and non-membership equally likely a priori, the attack accuracy is at most $\frac12+\frac14\sqrt{(1+(e^{1/\sigma^2}-1)/M)^E-1}$. The formula comes from the chi-square divergence between a Gaussian distribution and a Gaussian mixture that dominates random allocation. It is interpretable and gives $\sigma$ in about a microsecond. Where applicable, our formula needs at most about half the noise of the state-of-the-art closed-form bound. To measure how close the bound is, we also derive an exact expression for the attack accuracy of these two distributions and evaluate it numerically. Calibrating to this exact expression requires $13.0\%$ to $20.2\%$ less noise than the formula in our main experiments, and since it is exact, no accountant that knows only $M$, $E$ and $\sigma$ can certify a smaller $\sigma$. In training, the resulting $\sigma$ outperforms the formula and matches a published accountant in test accuracy. It is found in seconds and certified in minutes, whereas every search we ran with that accountant took longer or returned at least $0.62\%$ more noise. We show that MIAs on the trained models stay below the bound.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

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. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors

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. · 316 citations · ⚡15

Trajectory Balance: Improved Credit Assignment in GFlowNets

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. · 302 citations · ⚡60

KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization

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.

Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff et al. · 195 citations · ⚡28
#machine learning Review Open access Jun 2014

Why Early-Stage Software Startups Fail: A Behavioral Framework

This state-of-practice investigation was performed using a literature review followed by a multiple-case study approach and presents how inconsistency between managerial strategies and execution can lead to failure by means of a behavioral framework.

Carmine Giardino, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson · 175 citations · ⚡19

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.