Revisiting Model Inversion Evaluation: From Misleading Standards to Reliable Privacy Assessment

Abstract

Model Inversion attacks aim to reconstruct information from private training data by exploiting access to a target model. Nearly all recent MI studies evaluate attack success using a standard framework that computes attack accuracy through a secondary evaluation model trained on the same private data and task design as the target model. In this paper, we present the first in-depth analysis of this dominant evaluation framework and reveal a fundamental issue: many reconstructions deemed successful under the existing framework are in fact false positives that do not capture the visual identity of the target individual. We first show that these MI false positives satisfy the same formal conditions as Type I adversarial examples. Our controlled experiments, we demonstrate extremely high false-positive transferability, an empirical signature characteristic of adversarial behavior, indicating that many MI false positives likely contain Type I adversarial features. This adversarial transferability significantly inflates reported attack accuracy and leads to an overstatement of privacy leakage in existing MI work. To address this issue, as our second contribution, we introduce a new evaluation framework based on MLLMs, whose general-purpose visual reasoning avoids the shared-task vulnerability and reduces Type-I adversarial transferability of current evaluation framework. We propose systematic design principles for MLLM-based evaluation. Using this framework, we reassess 27 MI attack setups across diverse datasets, target models, and priors, and find consistently high false-positive rates under the conventional approach. Our results call for a reevaluation of progress in MI research and establish MLLM-based evaluation as a more reliable standard for assessing privacy risks in machine learning systems. Code/data/prompt are available at https://hosytuyen.github.io/projects/FMLLM