pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.10307 · v5 · pith:JIEHZILFnew · submitted 2024-03-15 · 💻 cs.IT · math.IT

Chernoff Information as a Privacy Constraint for Adversarial Classification and Membership Advantage

Ay\c{s}e \"Unsal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 03:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT math.IT
keywords differential privacyChernoff informationadversarial classificationmembership inferenceKL divergenceLaplace mechanismprivacy metricserror exponents
0
0 comments X

The pith

Chernoff information defines a privacy metric that lies between KL divergence and ε-differential privacy while supplying a new upper bound on membership inference advantage.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes Chernoff information as a privacy constraint motivated by its role in optimal binary classification error. It re-derives Chernoff DP from the Radon-Nikodym derivative and proves the metric is sandwiched between KL DP and ε-DP. Numerical evaluations under Laplace mechanisms show Chernoff information tracks the effect of adversarial attacks more closely than KL divergence when varied against the privacy parameter ε. A fresh upper bound on an adversary's membership inference advantage is obtained from Chernoff DP and compared numerically with existing (ε,δ)-DP bounds.

Core claim

By connecting ε-DP to the optimal error exponents of binary hypothesis testing through the Radon-Nikodym derivative, Chernoff DP is shown to be sandwiched between KL DP and ε-DP. Evaluations demonstrate that Chernoff information outperforms KL divergence as a function of ε under Laplace mechanisms, and a new upper bound on adversary membership advantage follows directly from the Chernoff DP definition.

What carries the argument

Chernoff information, which equals the optimal average error exponent in binary hypothesis testing and is re-expressed as a privacy metric (Chernoff DP) via the Radon-Nikodym derivative.

If this is right

  • Chernoff DP supplies a privacy guarantee that is strictly stronger than KL DP yet weaker than ε-DP.
  • The membership-advantage bound derived from Chernoff DP improves on existing bounds that rely on (ε,δ)-DP.
  • Numerical comparisons confirm that Chernoff information captures the impact of adversarial attacks more accurately than KL divergence under Laplace noise.
  • The sandwich relation permits direct translation between hypothesis-testing exponents and differential privacy parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same error-exponent link could be tested on mechanisms other than Laplace once their Chernoff information can be computed explicitly.
  • If membership advantage bounds improve under Chernoff DP, the same approach might tighten privacy analyses for other inference attacks that reduce to binary hypothesis tests.
  • The sandwich property suggests a practical way to select privacy budgets by balancing the three metrics rather than using any one in isolation.

Load-bearing premise

The binary hypothesis-testing setting together with the Laplace mechanism lets the optimal error exponents be written directly in terms of Chernoff information.

What would settle it

A concrete counterexample in which Chernoff DP fails to lie between KL DP and ε-DP for some pair of distributions, or a Laplace-mechanism plot in which Chernoff information no longer exceeds KL divergence for the tested range of ε.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2403.10307 by Ay\c{s}e \"Unsal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Differential privacy Definition 3 ((ε, δ)− differential privacy). A randomized algo￾rithm M is (ε, δ)− differentially private if ∀S ⊆ Range(M) and ∀x, x˜ that are neighbors within the domain of M, the following inequality holds. Pr [M(x) ∈ S] ≤ Pr [M(˜x) ∈ S] e ε + δ. (3) The randomized mechanism M can also be represented by the conditional distribution of the dataset Xn = (X1, X2, · · · , Xn) with the cor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Numerical comparison of KL-DP and Chernoff DP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Numerical comparison of different upper bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical comparison of proposed upper bounds for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical comparison of proposed upper bounds for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This work investigates a privacy metric based on Chernoff information motivated by its importance in characterizing the optimal classifier's performance. Adversarial classification centers on minimizing the probability of error when deciding between two classes in the binary setting. Classical hypothesis testing treats false alarm and mis-detection probabilities separately, resulting in asymmetric optimal error exponents. Here, we instead characterize the relationship between $\varepsilon-$differential privacy (DP), the optimal error exponent of one error probability conditioned on the other, and the optimal average error exponent. Thus, we re-derive Chernoff DP in connection with $\varepsilon-$DP using the Radon-Nikodym derivative and establish its relationship with Kullback-Leibler (KL) DP to prove that Chernoff DP is sandwiched between the two. We then present numerical evaluations demonstrating that Chernoff information outperforms the KL divergence as a function of the privacy parameter, particularly in capturing the impact of adversarial attacks under Laplace mechanisms. Finally, we upper bound the adversary's advantage in membership inference attacks based on Chernoff DP and numerically compare its performance with existing bounds. We re-derive Chernoff DP in connection with $\varepsilon-$DP using the Radon-Nikodym derivative, and prove its relation with KL-DP. Subsequently, we present numerical evaluation results, which demonstrates that Chernoff information outperforms KL divergence as a function of the privacy parameter $\varepsilon$ and the impact of the adversary's attack in Laplace mechanisms. Lastly, we introduce a new upper bound on adversary's membership advantage in membership inference attacks using Chernoff DP and numerically compare its performance with existing alternatives based on $(\varepsilon,\delta)-$DP in the literature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper re-derives Chernoff DP from the Radon-Nikodym derivative and proves it is sandwiched between KL DP and ε-DP. It reports numerical evaluations under Laplace mechanisms showing Chernoff information outperforms KL divergence as a function of ε, and derives a new upper bound on adversary membership advantage in inference attacks that is compared numerically to existing (ε,δ)-DP bounds.

Significance. If the single-shot application of Chernoff information to DP mechanisms is valid, the work would supply a privacy metric that more directly reflects optimal binary classifier error exponents and could tighten membership-inference advantage bounds relative to KL-based alternatives.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (re-derivation paragraph): the premise that optimal error exponents in the binary hypothesis-testing setting are directly given by Chernoff information C(P,Q) must be justified for the single-observation (n=1) case used throughout DP and membership-inference analysis; Chernoff information supplies the large-n asymptotic exponent for error probability decaying as e^{-nC}, so the Laplace-mechanism numerics and new advantage bound risk conflating the exponent with the finite-n total-variation or error probability that actually governs the privacy guarantee.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: numerical evaluations are described without dataset sizes, number of trials, error bars, or explicit exclusion rules, limiting assessment of the reported outperformance of Chernoff over KL.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the opportunity to address the concern regarding the single-observation applicability of Chernoff information. We provide a point-by-point response below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (re-derivation paragraph): the premise that optimal error exponents in the binary hypothesis-testing setting are directly given by Chernoff information C(P,Q) must be justified for the single-observation (n=1) case used throughout DP and membership-inference analysis; Chernoff information supplies the large-n asymptotic exponent for error probability decaying as e^{-nC}, so the Laplace-mechanism numerics and new advantage bound risk conflating the exponent with the finite-n total-variation or error probability that actually governs the privacy guarantee.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's point that Chernoff information C(P,Q) characterizes the asymptotic error exponent in the large-n regime of repeated independent hypothesis tests. Our manuscript, however, employs Chernoff information as a symmetric divergence measure between the output distributions P and Q of neighboring datasets, obtained directly via the Radon-Nikodym derivative; this yields the definition of Chernoff DP. The connection to optimal average error probability in binary classification is used only to motivate the choice of metric, not to equate the finite-n error probability with an exponential decay rate. The Laplace-mechanism comparisons and membership-advantage bound are computed from the explicit value of C(P,Q) for the given distributions and do not invoke the large-n limit. We will revise the abstract and introduction to explicitly distinguish the asymptotic exponent from the finite-n divergence application and to add a short justification of why C(P,Q) remains a meaningful privacy metric for n=1. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivations use standard Radon-Nikodym identities

full rationale

The paper re-derives Chernoff DP from the Radon-Nikodym derivative to relate it to ε-DP and KL-DP, then applies the resulting metric to Laplace-mechanism numerics and a membership-advantage bound. These steps invoke classical hypothesis-testing identities without any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, without self-citation load-bearing the central claim, and without an ansatz or uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The derivation chain remains independent of the target results and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Paper rests on standard information-theoretic identities and the binary classification model; no free parameters or invented entities are declared in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Optimal error exponents in binary hypothesis testing are characterized by Chernoff information
    Invoked when relating privacy to classifier performance

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5823 in / 1174 out tokens · 31214 ms · 2026-05-24T03:49:53.051214+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Differential privacy,

    C. Dwork, “Differential privacy,” inAutomata, Languages and Program- ming. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2006, pp. 1–12

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Differential Privacy as a Mutual Information Constraint,

    P. Cuff and L. Yu, “Differential Privacy as a Mutual Information Constraint,” inCCS 2016, Vienna, Austria. New York, NY , United States: Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. 2016, pp. 43–54

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Joseph, B

    A. Joseph, B. Nelson, B. Rubinstein, and J. Tygar,Adversarial Machine Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis,

    C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim, and A. Smith, “Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis,” inTheory of Cryptography Conference. International Association for Cryptologic Research, 2006, pp. 265–284

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    A statistical threshold for adversarial clas- sification in laplace mechanisms,

    A. ¨Unsal and M. ¨Onen, “A statistical threshold for adversarial clas- sification in laplace mechanisms,” in2021 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Calibrating the attack to sensitivity in differentially private mechanisms,

    ——, “Calibrating the attack to sensitivity in differentially private mechanisms,”Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 830–852, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2624-800X/ 2/4/42

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Renyi differential privacy,

    I. Mironov, “Renyi differential privacy,” 02 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    On the relation between identifiability, differential privacy and mutual information privacy,

    W. Wang, L. Ying, and J. Zhang, “On the relation between identifiability, differential privacy and mutual information privacy,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, pp. 5018–5029, Sep. 2016

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Information-theoretic bounds for differentially private mechanisms,

    G. Barthe and B. K ¨opf, “Information-theoretic bounds for differentially private mechanisms,” inComputer Security Foundations Symposium. New York, NY , USA: IEEE, 2011, pp. 191–204

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Information theoretic foundations of differential privacy,

    D. Mir, “Information theoretic foundations of differential privacy,” in International Symposium of Foundations on Practice of Security. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, Oct. 2012, pp. 374–381

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Differential privacy: On the trade-off between utility and information leakage,

    M. S. Alvim, M. E. Andr ´es, K. Chatzikokolakis, P. Degano, and C. Palamidessi, “Differential privacy: On the trade-off between utility and information leakage,” inFormal Aspects of Security and Trust. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 39–54

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Information-theoretic approaches to differential privacy,

    A. ¨Unsal and M. ¨Onen, “Information-theoretic approaches to differential privacy,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 3, Oct. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3604904

    work page doi:10.1145/3604904 2023

  13. [13]

    Information- theoretic analysis of neural coding,

    D. Johnson, C. Gruner, K. Baggerly, and C. Seshagiri, “Information- theoretic analysis of neural coding,”Journal of Computational Neuro- science, no. 10, pp. 47–69, 2001

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    f-divergence based classification: Beyond the use of cross-entropy,

    N. Novello and A. M. Tonello, “f-divergence based classification: Beyond the use of cross-entropy,” 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Multiclass Classification, Information, Divergence, and Surrogate Risk

    J. C. Duchi, K. Khosravi, and F. Ruan, “Information measures, experiments, multi-category hypothesis tests, and surrogate losses,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1603.00126, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13582051

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    A kullback-leibler diver- gence based kernel for svm classification in multimedia applications,

    P. J. Moreno, P. P. Ho, and N. Vasconcelos, “A kullback-leibler diver- gence based kernel for svm classification in multimedia applications,” in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS’03. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2003, p. 1385–1392

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Alpha- divergence for classification, indexing and retrieval (revised 2),

    A. O. Hero, B. Ma, O. J. J. Michel, and J. D. Gorman, “Alpha- divergence for classification, indexing and retrieval (revised 2),” 2002. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12727488

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    An information-geometric characterization of chernoff in- formation,

    F. Nielsen, “An information-geometric characterization of chernoff in- formation,”IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 20, Mar. 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Revisiting chernoff information with likelihood ratio exponential families,

    F. Nielsen, “Revisiting chernoff information with likelihood ratio exponential families,”Entropy, vol. 24, no. 10, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/10/1400

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Symmetrizing the kullback-leibler dis- tance,

    D. Johnson and S. Sinanovic, “Symmetrizing the kullback-leibler dis- tance,” 02 2003

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    , author Stronati, M

    R. Shokri, M. Stronati, C. Song, and V . Shmatikov, “Membership inference attacks against machine learning models,” in2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, May 2017, pp. 3–18. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SP.2017.41

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2017.41 2017

  22. [22]

    Membership inference attacks on machine learning: A survey,

    H. Hu, Z. Salcic, L. Sun, G. Dobbie, P. S. Yu, and X. Zhang, “Membership inference attacks on machine learning: A survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 11s, Sep. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3523273

    work page doi:10.1145/3523273 2022

  23. [23]

    Membership inference attack against principal component analysis,

    O. Zari, J. Parra-Arnau, A. ¨Unsal, T. Strufe, and M. ¨Onen, “Membership inference attack against principal component analysis,” inPrivacy in Statistical Databases, J. Domingo-Ferrer and M. Laurent, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 269–282

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Membership privacy: a unifying framework for privacy definitions,

    N. Li, W. Qardaji, D. Su, Y . Wu, and W. Yang, “Membership privacy: a unifying framework for privacy definitions,” inProceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security, ser. CCS ’13. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2013, p. 889–900. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/2508859.2516686

    work page doi:10.1145/2508859.2516686 2013

  25. [25]

    Privacy Risk in Machine Learning: Analyzing the Connection to Overfitting ,

    S. Yeom, I. Giacomelli, M. Fredrikson, and S. Jha, “ Privacy Risk in Machine Learning: Analyzing the Connection to Overfitting ,” in 2018 IEEE 31st Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, Jul. 2018, pp. 268–282. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10. 1109/CSF.2018.00027

    work page arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Bayes security measure,

    K. Chatzikokolakis, G. Cherubin, C. Palamidessi, and C. Troncoso, “Bayes security measure,” Dec. 2020, working paper or preprint. [Online]. Available: https://inria.hal.science/hal-03091416

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    That which we call private,

    ´Ulfar Erlingsson, I. Mironov, A. Raghunathan, and S. Song, “That which we call private,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/1908.03566

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Differential privacy for functions and functional data,

    R. Hall, A. Rinaldo, and L. Wasserman, “Differential privacy for functions and functional data,”J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 703–727, Feb. 2013

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Investigating Membership Inference Attacks under Data Dependencies ,

    T. Humphries, S. Oya, L. Tulloch, M. Rafuse, I. Goldberg, U. Hengartner, and F. Kerschbaum, “ Investigating Membership Inference Attacks under Data Dependencies ,” in2023 IEEE 36th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, Jul. 2023, pp. 473–488. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10...

    work page doi:10.1109/csf57540.2023 2023

  30. [30]

    Billingsley,Probability and Measure

    P. Billingsley,Probability and Measure. New York: Wiley, 1995. 11

    work page 1995

  31. [31]

    Sur une g ´en´eralisation des int ´egrales de m. j. radon,

    O. Nikodym, “Sur une g ´en´eralisation des int ´egrales de m. j. radon,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 131–179, 1930. [Online]. Available: http://eudml.org/doc/212339

    work page 1930

  32. [32]

    The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy,

    C. Dwork and A. Roth, “The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy,”Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 2014, vol. 9, pp. 211–407, 2014

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Kullback,Information Theory and Statistics

    S. Kullback,Information Theory and Statistics. New York: Wiley, 1959

    work page 1959

  34. [34]

    On information and sufficiency,

    S. Kullback and R. Leibler, “On information and sufficiency,”Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 22, 1951

    work page 1951

  35. [35]

    A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothe- sis based on the sum of observations,

    H. Chernoff, “A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothe- sis based on the sum of observations,”Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 23, pp. 493–507, 1952

    work page 1952

  36. [36]

    Cover and J

    T. Cover and J. A. Thomas,Elements of Information Theory. Wiley Series in Telecommunications, 1991

    work page 1991

  37. [37]

    Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation,

    C. Dwork, K. Kenthapadi, F. McSherry, I. Mironov, and M. Naor, “Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation,” inAdvances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 2006, S. Vaudenay, Ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 486–503

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    The composition theorem for differential privacy,

    P. Kairouz, S. Oh, and P. Viswanath, “The composition theorem for differential privacy,” in32nd International Conference on Machine Learning. JMLR, Inc. and Microtome Publishing (United States), 2015, pp. 4037–4049

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    The complexity of distinguishing distributions (invited talk),

    T. Baign `eres and S. Vaudenay, “The complexity of distinguishing distributions (invited talk),” inInformation Theoretic Security, R. Safavi- Naini, Ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 210–222

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    How far can we go beyond linear cryptanalysis?

    T. Baign `eres, P. Junod, and S. Vaudenay, “How far can we go beyond linear cryptanalysis?” inAdvances in Cryptology - ASIACRYPT 2004, P. J. Lee, Ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 432–450

    work page 2004