PreprintCited by 199Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Auditing Data Provenance in Text-Generation Models

Open access
Song, Congzheng, Shmatikov, Vitaly·2018·arXiv

Abstract

To help enforce data-protection regulations such as GDPR and detect unauthorized uses of personal data, we develop a new \emph{model auditing} technique that helps users check if their data was used to train a machine learning model. We focus on auditing deep-learning models that generate natural-language text, including word prediction and dialog generation. These models are at the core of popular online services and are often trained on personal data such as users' messages, searches, chats, and comments. We design and evaluate a black-box auditing method that can detect, with very few queries to a model, if a particular user's texts were used to train it (among thousands of other users). We empirically show that our method can successfully audit well-generalized models that are not overfitted to the training data. We also analyze how text-generation models memorize word sequences and explain why this memorization makes them amenable to auditing.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1811.00513

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Membership inference is the most well-established privacy attack and arguably constitutes a bigger privacy threat than class-level attacks, such as the attacks in [7, 59] and model inversion [18, 19].

    “We emphasize that membership inference is the most wellestablished privacy attack and arguably constitutes a bigger privacy threat [13,28,30,37,46,48,60,66,67,75] than classlevel attacks, such as the attacks in [7, 59] and model inversion [18, 19].”

    From When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy (2021) · cites this paper as [67]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, C., & Shmatikov, V.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Cornell Tech (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
Pages
196-206
OpenAlex
W2952604841
Cited by
199
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
9.27
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1611770, 1704296)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
text generation models, personal data protection, GDPR, dialogue generation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review