Papers › SoK: Membership Inference Attacks on LLMs are Rushing Nowhere (and How to Fix It)

SoK: Membership Inference Attacks on LLMs are Rushing Nowhere (and How to Fix It)

25 Jun 2024arXiv:2406.17975archive 2025-07-28

Matthieu Meeus, Igor Shilov, Shubham Jain, Manuel Faysse, Marek Rei, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye

Whether LLMs memorize their training data and what this means, from measuring privacy leakage to detecting copyright violations, has become a rapidly growing area of research. In the last few months, more than 10 new methods have been proposed to perform Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) against LLMs. Contrary to traditional MIAs which rely on fixed-but randomized-records or models, these methods are mostly trained and tested on datasets collected post-hoc. Sets of members and non-members, used to evaluate the MIA, are constructed using informed guesses after the release of a model. This lack of randomization raises concerns of a distribution shift between members and non-members. In this work, we first extensively review the literature on MIAs against LLMs and show that, while most work focuses on sequence-level MIAs evaluated in post-hoc setups, a range of target models, motivations and units of interest are considered. We then quantify distribution shifts present in 6 datasets used in the literature using a model-less bag of word classifier and show that all datasets constructed post-hoc suffer from strong distribution shifts. These shifts invalidate the claims of LLMs memorizing strongly in real-world scenarios and, potentially, also the methodological contributions of the recent papers based on these datasets. Yet, all hope might not be lost. We introduce important considerations to properly evaluate MIAs against LLMs and discuss, in turn, potential ways forwards: randomized test splits, injections of randomized (unique) sequences, randomized fine-tuning, and several post-hoc control methods. While each option comes with its advantages and limitations, we believe they collectively provide solid grounds to guide MIA development and study LLM memorization. We conclude with an overview of recommended approaches to benchmark sequence-level and document-level MIAs against LLMs.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

12 samples harvested; 11 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 12 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from computationalprivacy/mia_llms_benchmark. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections