The paper argues that evaluating anonymity in synthetic data generation must focus on the generative model rather than just the resulting dataset. It interprets GDPR definitions of personal data and anonymization under realistic model-access scenarios, mapping these to state‑of‑the‑art privacy attacks. The authors conclude that synthetic data alone is insufficient for anonymization, and that Differential Privacy offers stronger protection than Similarity‑based Privacy Metrics.
By Georgi Ganev, Emiliano De Cristofaro
arXiv:2606. 16952v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in synthetic data as a privacy-preserving alternative to sensitive real-world datasets.
By Kareem Amin, Rudrajit Das, Alessandro Epasto, Adel Javanmard, Dennis Kraft, M\'onica Ribero, Sergei Vassilvitskii
arXiv:2606. 16952v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in synthetic data as a privacy-preserving alternative to sensitive real-world datasets.
By Kareem Amin, Rudrajit Das, Alessandro Epasto, Adel Javanmard, Dennis Kraft, M\'onica Ribero, Sergei Vassilvitskii
arXiv:2606. 06334v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactuals are typically used in high-stakes decision areas to explain a machine learning model by showing how changes to the user profiles result in the desired outcome.
By Maryam Babaei, Yingke Wang, Hadrien Lautraite, Heber H. Arcolezi, Ulrich Aivodji, Sebastien Gambs
arXiv:2608.28934v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Differential privacy (DP) has traditionally been used to provide theoretical upper bounds on an algorithm's stability to changing its training data. In...
By Saloni Modi, Srivi Balaji, Yusong Zhu, Gautam Kamath, Kevin Tian
The paper explores how missing data can inherently enhance privacy in machine learning. By integrating missingness into a differential privacy framework, the authors demonstrate that the absence of certain features can amplify privacy guarantees without altering the underlying algorithm. This reveals a previously overlooked interaction between data incompleteness and formal privacy protections.
By Simon Roburin (LPSM), Rafa{\"e}l Pinot (LPSM), Erwan Scornet (LPSM)
arXiv:2607. 29144v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Synthetic face datasets are increasingly used to reduce privacy exposure and data access constraints in biometric recognition.
By Pawe{\l} Borsukiewicz, Daniele Lunghi, Wendk\^uuni C. Ou\'edraogo, Jacques Klein, Tegawend\'e F. Bissyand\'e
arXiv:2609.38934v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Differentially private (DP) text generation can protect individual records, but privacy alone does not specify what evidence a released statement car...
By Tsubasa Takahashi, Takumi Hiraoka
arXiv:2609.39629v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Differential privacy (DP) in machine learning is typically achieved by adding noise to model parameters (private learning) or to model outputs (private...
By Mihnea Ghitu, Matthew Wicker
arXiv:2503. 10945v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Current practices for reporting differential privacy (DP) guarantees for machine learning (ML) algorithms such as DP-SGD provide an incomplete and potentially misleading picture.
By Juan Felipe Gomez, Bogdan Kulynych, Georgios Kaissis, Flavio P. Calmon, Jamie Hayes, Borja Balle, Antti Honkela
Machine learning models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, raising concerns about both privacy and fairness. Differential Privacy (DP) has become a gold standard for privacy-preserving data analysis, while fairness-aware mechanisms aim to mitigate discrimination against underrepresented groups.
The paper surveys 25 studies that use explainable AI to compromise machine learning models, covering attacks such as model extraction, membership inference, and model inversion. It distinguishes between how explanations are obtained—through target releases, attacker-derived methods, secondary disclosure, privileged access, or global artifacts—and shows that explanations can lower extraction costs and reveal membership signals via statistics, recourse distance, and robustness. The authors compare threat models, signals, and defenses, concluding that no single explanation type is always unsafe and that protection must be tailored to the specific acquisition path and target asset.
By Abdullah Caglar Oksuz, Anisa Halimi, Erman Ayday