Is Difficulty Calibration All We Need? Towards More Practical Membership Inference Attacks

The vulnerability of machine learning models to Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) has garnered considerable attention in recent years. These attacks determine whether a data sample belongs to the model's training set or not. Recent research has focused on reference-based attacks, which leverage difficulty calibration with independently trained reference models. While empirical studies have demonstrated its effectiveness, there is a notable gap in our understanding of the circumstances under which it succeeds or fails. In this paper, we take a further step towards a deeper understanding of the role of difficulty calibration. Our observations reveal inherent limitations in calibration methods, leading to the misclassification of non-members and suboptimal performance, particularly on high-loss samples. We further identify that these errors stem from an imperfect sampling of the potential distribution and a strong dependence of membership scores on the model parameters. By shedding light on these issues, we propose RAPID: a query-efficient and computation-efficient MIA that directly \textbf{R}e-lever\textbf{A}ges the original membershi\textbf{P} scores to m\textbf{I}tigate the errors in \textbf{D}ifficulty calibration. Our experimental results, spanning 9 datasets and 5 model architectures, demonstrate that RAPID outperforms previous state-of-the-art attacks (e.g., LiRA and Canary offline) across different metrics while remaining computationally efficient. Our observations and analysis challenge the current de facto paradigm of difficulty calibration in high-precision inference, encouraging greater attention to the persistent risks posed by MIAs in more practical scenarios.