Attacks on Digital Watermarks for Deep Neural Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training deep neural networks is a computationally expensive task. Furthermore, models are often derived from proprietary datasets that have been carefully prepared and labelled. Hence, creators of deep learning models want to protect their models against intellectual property theft. However, this is not always possible, since the model may, e.g., be embedded in a mobile app for fast response times. As a countermeasure watermarks for deep neural networks have been developed that embed secret information into the model. This information can later be retrieved by the creator to prove ownership. Uchida et al. proposed the first such watermarking method. The advantage of their scheme is that it does not compromise the accuracy of the model prediction. However, in this paper we show that their technique modifies the statistical distribution of the model. Using this modification we can not only detect the presence of a watermark, but even derive its embedding length and use this information to remove the watermark by overwriting it. We show analytically that our detection algorithm follows consequentially from their embedding algorithm and propose a possible countermeasure. Our findings shall help to refine the definition of undetectability of watermarks for deep neural networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it