Auditing Data Provenance in Text-Generation Models
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946 · see citing works
Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data
McMahan, H. B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., & Arcas, B. A. Y. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1602.05629 · Cited by 14,215 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy
Chen, M., Zhang, Z., Wang, T., Backes, M., Humbert, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3460120.3484756 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Athena: Probabilistic Verification of Machine Unlearning
Sommer, D. M., Song, L., Wagh, S., & Mittal, P. (2022) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.56553/popets-2022-0072 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
- Authors
- Song, C., & Shmatikov, V.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Cornell Tech (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 196-206
- arXiv
- 1811.00513
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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