A Deep Learning Framework Supporting Model Ownership Protection and Traitor Tracing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud-based deep learning (DL) solutions have been widely used in applications ranging from image recognition to speech recognition. Meanwhile, as commercial software and services, such solutions have raised the need for intellectual property rights protection of the underlying DL models. Watermarking is the mainstream of existing solutions to address this concern, by primarily embedding pre-defined secrets in a model's training process. However, existing efforts almost exclusively focus on detecting whether a target model is pirated, without considering traitor tracing. In this paper, we present SecureMark_DL, which enables a model owner to embed a unique fingerprint for every customer within parameters of a DL model, extract and verify the fingerprint from a pirated model, and hence trace the rogue customer who illegally distributed his model for profits. We demonstrate that SecureMark_DL is robust against various attacks including fingerprints collusion and network transformation (e.g., model compression and model fine-tuning). Extensive experiments conducted on MNIST and CIFAR10 datasets, as well as various types of deep neural network show the superiority of SecureMark_DL in terms of training accuracy and robustness against various types of attacks.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".