Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

LUMIA: Linear probing for Unimodal and MultiModal Membership Inference Attacks leveraging internal LLM states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LUMIA claims that training a linear probe on every layer of an LLM's internal activations detects training-set membership better than output-based attacks, with average AUC gains of 15.71% on text models and strong results on multimodal…

desk verdict Useful broad study of linear probes for MIA, but the headline AUC gains are inflated by picking the best layer on the same split used to report results. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19876 v3 pith:YSNRC46J submitted 2024-11-29 cs.CR cs.AI

Luis Ibanez-Lissen , Lorena Gonzalez-Manzano , Jose Maria de Fuentes , Nicolas Anciaux , Joaquin Garcia-Alfaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords membershipinferenceattackslinearprobesinternalactivationslargelanguagemodelsmultimodaltrainingdatadetectionlayer-wiseanalysisprivacyauditing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

LUMIA proposes that membership inference attacks on large language models can be mounted by training a linear probe on the internal activations at every layer, rather than relying only on model outputs. The paper claims this white-box strategy outperforms previous output-based and grey-box attacks on unimodal text models, with an average gain of 15.71% in AUC, reaching AUC above 0.6 in 65.33% of tested configurations. It extends the same approach to multimodal models, where probes on activations from the visual encoder alone often detect membership, with 85.9% of experiments exceeding the 0.6 AUC threshold. The paper also identifies where in the network membership information concentrates, which layers vary with dataset bias type, and how model size, deduplication, and task nature change vulnerability. If these results hold, internal activations give auditors a practical tool for assessing whether sensitive or copyrighted data was used in training.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the linear probe: a lightweight classifier (implemented as a small MLP) placed after a model layer, taking as input the average of the activation vectors $A_l(x_i)$ over all tokens of a sample at layer $l$, and trained to predict membership status $y_i$. Its output is an AUC per layer, and LUMIA's detector is the layer $l^*$ with maximum AUC. The probes reveal where membership information concentrates and turn internal activations into a per-layer membership score.

What would settle it

Take one of the paper's setups, such as Pythia 12B on a temporal-bias dataset, hold out a third partition never touched during training or layer selection, and recompute the AUC at the previously chosen layer $l^*$. If the average improvement over the best state-of-the-art method drops below the claimed 15.71% or the AUC>0.6 rate falls below 65.33%, the headline numbers are an artifact of layer selection on the test split.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that per-layer hidden states of an LLM separate training members from non-members with a simple linear classifier, and this separation is stronger than what can be read from loss, perplexity, or output probabilities. LUMIA trains one linear probe per layer on the mean activation vector across tokens, computes AUC for each layer, and takes the layer with the highest AUC as the detector. Across 14 textual and seven multimodal datasets and 15 model configurations, the paper reports that LUMIA improves on the best state-of-the-art AUC in 174 of 176 unimodal comparisons, that gains hold for both temporal-bias and n-gram-bias datasets, and that in multimodal models the visual encoder's activations alone often suffice to detect membership. The paper also finds that membership information is not spread uniformly: temporal-bias datasets leak most in early layers, n-gram-overlap datasets in deeper layers, and multimodal models in middle layers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 80/20 random split used both to pick the best layer and to report the final AUC is an unbiased evaluation; if that shared split inflates the peak, the reported gains shrink when measured on data never used for layer selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LUMIA outperforms the best prior method in 174 of 176 unimodal configurations, with an average AUC gain of 15.71% and AUC above 0.6 in 65.33% of cases.
  • In multimodal models, LUMIA reaches AUC above 0.6 in 85.9% of experiments, and activations from the visual encoder alone are often sufficient to detect membership.
  • Membership signal is concentrated in specific layers rather than spread uniformly, so the choice of layer matters for detection.
  • AUC increases with model size in most configurations, meaning larger models are more vulnerable to this kind of probing.
  • Deduplication reduces attack effectiveness on temporal-bias datasets, while no clear difference appears on n-gram-bias datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the per-layer activation signal is as separable as reported, defenders could inject noise or truncate activations at the specific high-leakage layers the paper identifies, reducing MIA success without full retraining.
  • The same layer-wise probing setup could be applied to other modalities, such as audio or video, and to copyright-violation detection, since the method does not depend on the model's output format.
  • The reported gains may overestimate deployable performance because the same random split is used both to choose the best layer and to compute the final AUC; an independent held-out split would likely lower the headline numbers.
  • Because the method requires white-box access to internal activations, its realistic users are model owners and auditors rather than remote API attackers, so the practical threat model differs from black-box membership inference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces LUMIA, a white-box membership inference method that trains linear probes on per-layer internal activations of LLMs. It is evaluated on unimodal (Pythia, GPT-Neo; WikiMIA, ArXiv, Mimir, Gutenberg, etc.) and multimodal (LLaVA-OneVision; seven datasets) settings, comparing AUC against several SOTA baselines. The paper reports an average relative AUC improvement of 15.71% over SOTA, reaching AUC>0.6 in 65.33% of unimodal cases and 85.9% of multimodal experiments, and analyzes how layer depth, model size, deduplication, and dataset bias affect detection.

Significance. The core idea is timely and useful: using internal activations for MIA is a natural white-box direction, and the layer-by-layer analysis plus the extension to multimodal models are novel relative to prior work. The paper's strengths include broad model/dataset coverage, comparison with multiple baselines, and a public (reduced) code release. If the quantitative claims survive a corrected evaluation protocol, this would be a solid contribution to the MIA literature. However, the headline numbers are not yet reliable because of the evaluation protocol.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1 and 4.3] The reported unimodal AUC is the maximum over layers l* selected on the same 80/20 split that is then used to report the final AUC. Section 3.1 defines l* as the layer with highest AUC, and Section 4.3 states that all data are split once into 80% training and 20% validation with three repeats and no separate test set. Since l* is chosen and evaluated on the same validation data, the headline 15.71% average improvement and the 65.33% AUC>0.6 frequency are upper-bound estimates; the maximum over up to 36 layers (Pythia 12B) can inflate AUC even for a probe with no true signal. Please re-evaluate on a fresh held-out split after layer selection, or otherwise quantify the selection bias (e.g., by reporting the difference between max-layer and fixed-layer AUC on a test set).
  2. [4.3 and 5.1] The evaluation reports only the average of three repeats and no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. Many improvements in Tables 1 and 2 are small (e.g., 0.00% for Wikipedia Ref in Table 2, 0.30% for WikiMIA Heuristics in Table 1), so the claim that LUMIA improves on SOTA in 174 of 176 cases is not supported without a measure of variance. Please report per-repeat results, error bars, and a paired significance test (e.g., Wilcoxon or bootstrap) over the three repeats.
  3. [5.1 and Table 3] The multimodal summary is internally inconsistent. The text states that all configurations except Magpie achieve AUC>0.6, but Table 3 shows Textcaps 0.5B Textual+visual at 0.540 and MathV360k 0.5B Textual+visual at 0.599 and Visual at 0.584. If the 85.9% figure counts the best modality per dataset-size pair, the count is 12/14 (85.7%), not 85.9%; if it counts all modality entries, the fraction is 21/28 (75%). Please define the counting unit and correct the statements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The headline number appears as 15.71% in the abstract and Takeaway 1, but Section 5.1 states 15.75%; please harmonize.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The 15.71% figure is an average of relative improvements (each entry is computed as (Ours - SOTA)/SOTA), not an average gain in AUC units; please state this explicitly to avoid overclaiming.
  3. [Footnote 5] The code release is described as a 'reduced version' of LUMIA; for reproducibility, a full release with the exact train/validation split and layer-selection procedure is needed.
  4. [2.2 and 3.2] Linear probes are defined in Section 2.2 as MLPs, while Section 2.2 also calls them linear classifiers; please clarify whether the probe is a single linear layer or a multi-layer perceptron, since this affects the interpretation of 'linear probing'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor fitted-selection circularity in best-layer AUC reporting; central LUMIA result remains otherwise externally grounded.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Metric) and Section 4.3 (Experimental settings); headline results in Section 5.1]
    "Evaluate Pl using metrics such as Area Under the Curve (AUC) for each layer l, and identify the layer l∗ where membership information is most detectable (i.e. where Pl∗ achieves the highest AUC). ... For both training and validation, all datasets were randomly split in an 80%-20% balancing both classes (members and non-members) and repeating three times experiments with different samples. The average of all executions is then computed."

    By Section 3.1, LUMIA's reported AUC is by construction the maximum over the per-layer probe AUCs (l* is the argmax). Section 4.3 describes a single 80/20 split with no separate test set, so the same 20% split is used both to select l* and to produce the final reported AUC. Consequently the headline values in Section 5.1 (15.71% average gain; AUC>0.6 in 65.33% of cases) are order statistics of the validation split rather than independent estimates of a fixed attack's performance. The layer choice is a fitted selection and the reported metric is the selected layer's validation score, so the quantitative claim is partly forced by the selection procedure.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical evaluation rather than a derivation, and most of its chain is self-contained: LUMIA trains linear probes on per-layer activations against an 80% split and reports AUC on a 20% split, compared with external baselines (Loss, Reference, zlib, min-k) on public datasets. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling citation appears; the qualitative conclusion that internal activations carry membership information is supported by the LP training/evaluation loop and is not definitionally manufactured. The only circular-adjacent step is the layer-selection protocol: l* is defined as the layer with maximum validation AUC, the same 20% split is used for the final reported AUC, and no separate test set is described. This makes the headline 15.71% gain and 65.33% AUC>0.6 frequency upper-bound estimates of the selection procedure, a minor fitted-input-called-prediction issue. It does not make LUMIA's attack equivalent to its output, so the score is 2 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is empirical; the main assumptions are about label correctness and the representational choice of mean-pooled activations. There are no invented entities. The most consequential accounting item is the best-layer selection, which acts as a data-dependent free parameter in every reported AUC.

free parameters (4)
  • LP learning rate = 1e-3
    Chosen for all probes; no sensitivity analysis, so the reported AUCs may depend on this value.
  • LP training schedule = 100 epochs, Adam, early stopping, dropout
    Hyperparameters selected by hand; no grid search or ablation reported.
  • Token pooling = mean of token activations (Eq. 1)
    Membership features are aggregated by averaging over tokens; other pooling strategies are not evaluated.
  • Best-layer selection = layer l* per dataset/model
    The reported AUC is the maximum over layers chosen on the same 80/20 split, a data-dependent selection that inflates the headline numbers.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Membership labels (member vs non-member) accurately reflect inclusion in the pretraining data of the target model.
    AUC is interpreted as membership detection; if labels are wrong, the metric measures dataset shift instead. Stated in Section 4.1 as 'data used for pre-training is known'.
  • ad hoc to paper Mean-pooled token activations per layer preserve membership information.
    Eq. 1 defines the probe input as a simple average; the paper does not compare against other pooling or per-token features.
  • ad hoc to paper The 80/20 split and three repeats produce an unbiased test estimate without a separate test set.
    Layer selection uses the same split as the reported AUC, so the evaluation is not fully independent (Section 4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LUMIA: Linear probing for Unimodal and MultiModal Membership Inference Attacks leveraging internal LLM states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSNRC46J

@misc{pith2026241119876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LUMIA: Linear probing for Unimodal and MultiModal Membership Inference Attacks leveraging internal LLM states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSNRC46J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19876}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in a variety of applications, but concerns around membership inference have grown in parallel. Previous efforts focus on black-to-grey-box models, thus neglecting the potential benefit from internal LLM information. To address this, we propose the use of Linear Probes (LPs) as a method to detect Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) by examining internal activations of LLMs. Our approach, dubbed LUMIA, applies LPs layer-by-layer to get fine-grained data on the model inner workings. We test this method across several model architectures, sizes and datasets, including unimodal and multimodal tasks. In unimodal MIA, LUMIA achieves an average gain of 15.71 % in Area Under the Curve (AUC) over previous techniques. Remarkably, LUMIA reaches AUC>60% in 65.33% of cases -- an increment of 46.80% against the state of the art. Furthermore, our approach reveals key insights, such as the model layers where MIAs are most detectable. In multimodal models, LPs indicate that visual inputs can significantly contribute to detect MIAs -- AUC>60% is reached in 85.90% of experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System overview Given the large variety of LLMs, MD allows analysing MIA attacks once samples composed of image and text are input. A couple of ways to handle multimodality are devised – training an LLM just with images or with images and text, computing LPs over the resulting activations Al(xi). Extracting activation data Activations Al(xi), per layer, capture values for all tokens. First, samples xi from members a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pythia family. AUC by layer. (a) NGB datasets; (b) TB datasets (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LLava-OneVision. AUC by layer. (a) Visual encoder only; (b) Visual+text encoder Unimodal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GPT-Neo. AUC by layer. (a) NGB datasets; (b) TB datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MrM: Black-Box Membership Inference Attacks against Multimodal RAG Systems

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MrM is a black-box membership inference attack on multimodal RAG systems that masks key objects in a target image and uses the system's ability to reconstruct them as a membership signal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F.L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., et al.: Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01644 (2016)

    Alain, G., Bengio, Y.: Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01644 (2016)

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning

    Biderman, S., Schoelkopf, H., Anthony, Q.G., Bradley, H., O’Brien, K., Hallahan, E., Khan, M.A., Purohit, S., Prashanth, U.S., Raff, E., et al.: Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 2397–2430. PMLR (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    In: 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)

    Carlini, N., Chien, S., Nasr, M., Song, S., Terzis, A., Tramer, F.: Membership inference attacks from first principles. In: 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). pp. 1897–1914. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    In: 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Se- curity 21)

    Carlini, N., Tramer, F., Wallace, E., Jagielski, M., Herbert-Voss, A., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Brown, T., Song, D., Erlingsson, U., et al.: Extracting training data from large language models. In: 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Se- curity 21). pp. 2633–2650 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    In: The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

    Casper, S., Ezell, C., Siegmann, C., Kolt, N., Curtis, T.L., Bucknall, B., Haupt, A., Wei, K., Scheurer, J., Hobbhahn, M., et al.: Black-box access is insufficient for rigorous ai audits. In: The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 2254–2272 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16201 (2024)

    Das, D., Zhang, J., Tramèr, F.: Blind baselines beat membership inference attacks for foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16201 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09733 (2024)

    Duan, H., Yang, Y., Tam, K.Y.: Do llms know about hallucination? an empirical investigation of llm’s hidden states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09733 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Duan, M., Suri, A., Mireshghallah, N., Min, S., Shi, W., Zettlemoyer, L., Tsvetkov, Y., Choi, Y., Evans, D., Hajishirzi, H.: Do membership inference attacks work on large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07841 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Yang, A., Fan, A., et al.: The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gao, J., Li, M., Lee, K.F.: N-gram distribution based language model adaptation (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027 (2020)

    Gao, L., Biderman, S., Black, S., Golding, L., Hoppe, T., Foster, C., Phang, J., He, H., Thite, A., Nabeshima, N., et al.: The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07582 (2024)

    Kim, G., Li, Y., Spiliopoulou, E., Ma, J., Ballesteros, M., Wang, W.Y.: Detect- ing training data of large language models via expectation maximization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07582 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326 (2024)

    Li, B., Zhang, Y., Guo, D., Zhang, R., Li, F., Zhang, H., Zhang, K., Li, Y., Liu, Z., Li, C.: Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02902 (2024)

    Li, Z., Wu, Y., Chen, Y., Tonin, F., Rocamora, E.A., Cevher, V.: Membership infer- ence attacks against large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02902 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01333 (2024) 20 Ibanez-Lissen et al

    Liu, Z., Zhu, T., Tan, C., Lu, H., Liu, B., Chen, W.: Probing language models for pre-training data detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01333 (2024) 20 Ibanez-Lissen et al

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    In: The 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2022)

    Lu, P., Mishra, S., Xia, T., Qiu, L., Chang, K.W., Zhu, S.C., Tafjord, O., Clark, P., Kalyan, A.: Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering. In: The 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13214 (2021)

    Lu, P., Qiu, L., Chen, J., Xia, T., Zhao, Y., Zhang, W., Yu, Z., Liang, X., Zhu, S.C.: Iconqa: A new benchmark for abstract diagram understanding and visual language reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13214 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10244 (2022)

    Masry, A., Long, D.X., Tan, J.Q., Joty, S., Hoque, E.: Chartqa: A benchmark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10244 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    In: 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24)

    Meeus, M., Jain, S., Rei, M., de Montjoye, Y.A.: Did the neurons read your book? document-level membership inference for large language models. In: 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24). pp. 2369–2385 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    nature323(6088), 533–536 (1986)

    Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E., Williams, R.J.: Learning representations by back- propagating errors. nature323(6088), 533–536 (1986)

    1986

  15. [23]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning

    Sablayrolles, A., Douze, M., Schmid, C., Ollivier, Y., Jégou, H.: White-box vs black-box: Bayes optimal strategies for membership inference. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 5558–5567. PMLR (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Schwenk, D., Khandelwal, A., Clark, C., Marino, K., Mottaghi, R.: A-okvqa: A benchmark for visual question answering using world knowledge. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 146–162. Springer (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16789 (2023)

    Shi, W., Ajith, A., Xia, M., Huang, Y., Liu, D., Blevins, T., Chen, D., Zettle- moyer, L.: Detecting pretraining data from large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16789 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17294 (2024)

    Shi, W., Hu, Z., Bin, Y., Liu, J., Yang, Y., Ng, S.K., Bing, L., Lee, R.K.W.: Math-llava: Bootstrapping mathematical reasoning for multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17294 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th Eu- ropean Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16

    Sidorov, O., Hu, R., Rohrbach, M., Singh, A.: Textcaps: a dataset for image cap- tioning with reading comprehension. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th Eu- ropean Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16. pp. 742–758. Springer (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    Vaswani, A.: Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    IEEE signal processing magazine26(1), 98–117 (2009)

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C.: Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? a new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE signal processing magazine26(1), 98–117 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08464 (2024)

    Xu, Z., Jiang, F., Niu, L., Deng, Y., Poovendran, R., Choi, Y., Lin, B.Y.: Magpie: Alignment data synthesis from scratch by prompting aligned llms with nothing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08464 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05156 (2024)

    Yan, B., Li, K., Xu, M., Dong, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, Z., Cheng, X.: On protect- ing the data privacy of large language models (llms): A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05156 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    In: 2018 IEEE 31st computer security foundations symposium (CSF)

    Yeom, S., Giacomelli, I., Fredrikson, M., Jha, S.: Privacy risk in machine learning: Analyzing the connection to overfitting. In: 2018 IEEE 31st computer security foundations symposium (CSF). pp. 268–282. IEEE (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19798 (2024)

    Zhang, J., Das, D., Kamath, G., Tramèr, F.: Membership inference attacks cannot prove that a model was trained on your data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19798 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.