Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lukas Wutschitz
dblp:263/8844
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
0as first author
8since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 6 since 2021Security and privacy · 3 · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
9 papers |
Privacy and data protection · 80% Security and privacy of machine learning · 20% | |
| Artificial intelligence
5 papers |
Language models and text generation · 52% Efficient and distributed learning · 29% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 19% |
Topics — the 21 heaviest of 23, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy |
3.1 | 5 | 2024 | Closed-Form Bounds for DP-SGD against Record-level Inference · USENIX Security Symposium 2024 Bayesian Estimation of Differential Privacy · ICML 2023 Differentially Private Model Compression · NeurIPS 2022 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
membership inference |
1.5 | 3 | 2025 | The Canary's Echo: Auditing Privacy Risks of LLM-Generated Synthetic Text · ICML 2025 Analyzing Information Leakage of Updates to Natural Language Models · CCS 2020 Bayesian Estimation of Differential Privacy · ICML 2023 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › differentially private deep learning
DP-SGD |
0.9 | 2 | 2024 | Closed-Form Bounds for DP-SGD against Record-level Inference · USENIX Security Symposium 2024 Numerical Composition of Differential Privacy · NeurIPS 2021 |
Privacy and data protection › privacy analysis › privacy models
contextual integrity |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Contextual Integrity in LLMs via Reasoning and Reinforcement Learning · NeurIPS 2025 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
privacy auditing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Canary's Echo: Auditing Privacy Risks of LLM-Generated Synthetic Text · ICML 2025 |
Privacy and data protection
statistical database privacy |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Contextual Integrity in LLMs via Reasoning and Reinforcement Learning · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation
fine-tuning |
0.7 | 2 | 2022 | Differentially Private Fine-tuning of Language Models · ICLR 2022 Differentially Private Model Compression · NeurIPS 2022 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › privacy attack
data extraction attack |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models · SP 2023 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › model privacy
language model privacy |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models · SP 2023 |
Privacy and data protection
personally identifiable information |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models · SP 2023 |
Privacy and data protection › information leakage
personally identifiable information leakage |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models · SP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model
large language model adaptation |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Differentially Private Fine-tuning of Language Models · ICLR 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Differentially Private Model Compression · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
sparsity |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Differentially Private Model Compression · NeurIPS 2022 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › differentially private deep learning
differentially private fine-tuning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Differentially Private Fine-tuning of Language Models · ICLR 2022 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › privacy accounting
composition theorems |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Numerical Composition of Differential Privacy · NeurIPS 2021 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
privacy accounting |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Numerical Composition of Differential Privacy · NeurIPS 2021 |
Privacy and data protection › information leakage
training data leakage |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Analyzing Information Leakage of Updates to Natural Language Models · CCS 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text generation
synthetic text generation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | The Canary's Echo: Auditing Privacy Risks of LLM-Generated Synthetic Text · ICML 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model fine-tuning |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models · SP 2023 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
pre-trained language model |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Differentially Private Model Compression · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
differential privacy · 3.6reinforcement learning · 1.7membership inference attack · 1.7chain-of-thought reasoning · 1.7canary design · 1.7reconstruction attack · 1.3membership inference · 1.3model compression · 1.1differentially private SGD · 0.7bayesian posterior estimation · 0.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | The Canary's Echo: Auditing Privacy Risks of LLM-Generated Synthetic TextabstractHow much information about training samples can be leaked through synthetic data generated by Large Language Models (LLMs)? Overlooking the subtleties of information flow in synthetic data generation pipelines can lead to a false sense of privacy. In this paper, we assume an adversary has access to some synthetic data generated by a LLM. We design membership inference attacks (MIAs) that target the training data used to fine-tune the LLM that is then used to synthesize data. The significant performance of our MIA shows that synthetic data leak information about the training data. Further, we find that canaries crafted for model-based MIAs are sub-optimal for privacy auditing when only synthetic data is released. Such out-of-distribution canaries have limited influence on the model’s output when prompted to generate useful, in-distribution synthetic data, which drastically reduces their effectiveness. To tackle this problem, we leverage the mechanics of auto-regressive models to design canaries with an in-distribution prefix and a high-perplexity suffix that leave detectable traces in synthetic data. This enhances the power of data-based MIAs and provides a better assessment of the privacy risks of releasing synthetic data generated by LLMs. Matthieu Meeus, Lukas Wutschitz, Santiago Zanella-Béguelin, Shruti Tople, Reza Shokri |
ICML | 2 |
| 2025 | Contextual Integrity in LLMs via Reasoning and Reinforcement LearningabstractAs the era of autonomous agents making decisions on behalf of users unfolds, ensuring contextual integrity (CI) -- what is the appropriate information to share while carrying out a certain task -- becomes a central question to the field.
We posit that CI demands a form of reasoning where the agent needs to reason about the context in which it is operating.
To test this, we first prompt LLMs to reason explicitly about CI when deciding what information to disclose.
We then extend this approach by developing a reinforcement learning (RL) framework that further instills in models the reasoning necessary to achieve CI.
Using a synthetic, automatically created, dataset of only $\sim700$ examples but with diverse contexts and information disclosure norms, we show that our method substantially reduces inappropriate information disclosure while maintaining task performance across multiple model sizes and families.
Importantly, improvements transfer from this synthetic dataset to established CI benchmarks such as PrivacyLens that has human annotations and evaluates privacy leakage of AI assistants in actions and tool calls. Guangchen Lan, Huseyin A. Inan, Sahar Abdelnabi, Janardhan Kulkarni, Lukas Wutschitz, Reza Shokri, Christopher G. Brinton, Robert Sim |
NeurIPS | 5 |
| 2024 | Closed-Form Bounds for DP-SGD against Record-level Inference
Giovanni Cherubin, Boris Köpf, Andrew Paverd, Shruti Tople, Lukas Wutschitz, Santiago Zanella-Béguelin |
USENIX Security Symposium | 5 |
| 2023 | Bayesian Estimation of Differential PrivacyabstractAlgorithms such as Differentially Private SGD enable training machine learning models with formal privacy guarantees. However, because these guarantees hold with respect to unrealistic adversaries, the protection afforded against practical attacks is typically much better. An emerging strand of work empirically estimates the protection afforded by differentially private training as a confidence interval for the privacy budget $\hat{\varepsilon}$ spent with respect to specific threat models. Existing approaches derive confidence intervals for $\hat{\varepsilon}$ from confidence intervals for false positive and false negative rates of membership inference attacks, which requires training an impractically large number of models to get intervals that can be acted upon. We propose a novel, more efficient Bayesian approach that brings privacy estimates within the reach of practitioners. Our approach reduces sample size by computing a posterior for $\hat{\varepsilon}$ (not just a confidence interval) from the joint posterior of the false positive and false negative rates of membership inference attacks. We implement an end-to-end system for privacy estimation that integrates our approach and state-of-the-art membership inference attacks, and evaluate it on text and vision classification tasks. For the same number of samples, we see a reduction in interval width of up to 40% compared to prior work. Santiago Zanella-Béguelin, Lukas Wutschitz, Shruti Tople, Ahmed Salem 0001, Victor Rühle, Andrew Paverd, Mohammad Naseri, Boris Köpf |
ICML | 2 |
| 2023 | Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language ModelsabstractLanguage Models (LMs) have been shown to leak information about training data through sentence-level membership inference and reconstruction attacks. Understanding the risk of LMs leaking Personally Identifiable Information (PII) has received less attention, which can be attributed to the false assumption that dataset curation techniques such as scrubbing are sufficient to prevent PII leakage. Scrubbing techniques reduce but do not prevent the risk of PII leakage: in practice scrubbing is imperfect and must balance the trade-off between minimizing disclosure and preserving the utility of the dataset. On the other hand, it is unclear to which extent algorithmic defenses such as differential privacy, designed to guarantee sentence-or user-level privacy, prevent PII disclosure. In this work, we introduce rigorous game-based definitions for three types of PII leakage via black-box extraction, inference, and reconstruction attacks with only API access to an LM. We empirically evaluate the attacks against GPT-2 models fine-tuned with and without defenses in three domains: case law, health care, and e-mails. Our main contributions are (i) novel attacks that can extract up to 10× more PII sequences than existing attacks, (ii) showing that sentence-level differential privacy reduces the risk of PII disclosure but still leaks about 3% of PII sequences, and (iii) a subtle connection between record-level membership inference and PII reconstruction. Code to reproduce all experiments in the paper is available at https://github.com/microsoft/analysing_pii_leakage. Nils Lukas, Ahmed Salem 0001, Robert Sim, Shruti Tople, Lukas Wutschitz, Santiago Zanella-Béguelin |
SP | 5 |
| 2022 | Differentially Private Fine-tuning of Language Models
Saurabh Naik, Arturs Backurs, Sivakanth Gopi, Huseyin A. Inan, Gautam Kamath 0001, Janardhan Kulkarni, Yin Tat Lee, Andre Manoel, Lukas Wutschitz, Sergey Yekhanin, Huishuai Zhang |
ICLR | 10 |
| 2022 | Differentially Private Model CompressionabstractRecent papers have shown that large pre-trained language models (LLMs) such as BERT, GPT-2 can be fine-tuned on private data to achieve performance comparable to non-private models for many downstream Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks while simultaneously guaranteeing differential privacy. The inference cost of these models -- which consist of hundreds of millions of parameters -- however, can be prohibitively large. Hence, often in practice, LLMs are compressed before they are deployed in specific applications. In this paper, we initiate the study of differentially private model compression and propose frameworks for achieving 50% sparsity levels while maintaining nearly full performance. We demonstrate these ideas on standard GLUE benchmarks using BERT models, setting benchmarks for future research on this topic. Niloofar Mireshghallah, Arturs Backurs, Huseyin A. Inan, Lukas Wutschitz, Janardhan Kulkarni |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2021 | Numerical Composition of Differential PrivacyabstractWe give a fast algorithm to compose privacy guarantees of differentially private (DP) algorithms to arbitrary accuracy. Our method is based on the notion of privacy loss random variables to quantify the privacy loss of DP algorithms. The running time and memory needed for our algorithm to approximate the privacy curve of a DP algorithm composed with itself $k$ times is $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{k})$. This improves over the best prior method by Koskela et al. (2020) which requires $\tilde{\Omega}(k^{1.5})$ running time. We demonstrate the utility of our algorithm by accurately computing the privacy loss of DP-SGD algorithm of Abadi et al. (2016) and showing that our algorithm speeds up the privacy computations by a few orders of magnitude compared to prior work, while maintaining similar accuracy. Sivakanth Gopi, Yin Tat Lee, Lukas Wutschitz |
NeurIPS | 3 |
| 2020 | Analyzing Information Leakage of Updates to Natural Language ModelsabstractTo continuously improve quality and reflect changes in data, machine learning applications have to regularly retrain and update their core models. We show that a differential analysis of language model snapshots before and after an update can reveal a surprising amount of detailed information about changes in the training data. We propose two new metrics---differential score and differential rank---for analyzing the leakage due to updates of natural language models. We perform leakage analysis using these metrics across models trained on several different datasets using different methods and configurations. We discuss the privacy implications of our findings, propose mitigation strategies and evaluate their effect. Santiago Zanella-Béguelin, Lukas Wutschitz, Shruti Tople, Victor Rühle, Andrew Paverd, Olga Ohrimenko, Boris Köpf, Marc Brockschmidt |
CCS | 2 |