Papers › "What do you want from theory alone?" Experimenting with Tight Auditing of...

"What do you want from theory alone?" Experimenting with Tight Auditing of Differentially Private Synthetic Data Generation

16 May 2024arXiv:2405.10994links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Meenatchi Sundaram Muthu Selva Annamalai, Georgi Ganev, Emiliano De Cristofaro

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Differentially private synthetic data generation (DP-SDG) algorithms are used to release datasets that are structurally and statistically similar to sensitive data while providing formal bounds on the information they leak. However, bugs in algorithms and implementations may cause the actual information leakage to be higher. This prompts the need to verify whether the theoretical guarantees of state-of-the-art DP-SDG implementations also hold in practice. We do so via a rigorous auditing process: we compute the information leakage via an adversary playing a distinguishing game and running membership inference attacks (MIAs). If the leakage observed empirically is higher than the theoretical bounds, we identify a DP violation; if it is non-negligibly lower, the audit is loose. We audit six DP-SDG implementations using different datasets and threat models and find that black-box MIAs commonly used against DP-SDGs are severely limited in power, yielding remarkably loose empirical privacy estimates. We then consider MIAs in stronger threat models, i.e., passive and active white-box, using both existing and newly proposed attacks. Overall, we find that, currently, we do not only need white-box MIAs but also worst-case datasets to tightly estimate the privacy leakage from DP-SDGs. Finally, we show that our automated auditing procedure finds both known DP violations (in 4 out of the 6 implementations) as well as a new one in the DPWGAN implementation that was successfully submitted to the NIST DP Synthetic Data Challenge. The source code needed to reproduce our experiments is available from https://github.com/spalabucr/synth-audit.

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

9 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 9 of the 9 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 spalabucr/synth-audit. “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.

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