Careful What You Wish For: on the Extraction of Adversarially Trained Models
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
Recent attacks on Machine Learning (ML) models such as evasion attacks with adversarial examples and models stealing through extraction attacks pose several security and privacy threats. Prior work proposes to use adversarial training to secure models from adversarial examples that can evade the classification of a model and deteriorate its performance. However, this protection technique affects the model’s decision boundary and its prediction probabilities, hence it might raise model privacy risks. In fact, a malicious user using only a query access to the prediction output of a model can extract it and obtain a high-accuracy and high-fidelity surrogate model. To have a greater extraction, these attacks leverage the prediction probabilities of the victim model. Indeed, all previous work on extraction attacks do not take into consideration the changes in the training process for security purposes. In this paper, we propose a framework to assess extraction attacks on adversarially trained models with vision datasets. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to perform such evaluation. Through an extensive empirical study, we demonstrate that adversarially trained models are more vulnerable to extraction attacks than models obtained under natural training circumstances. They can achieve up to ×1.2 higher accuracy and agreement with a fraction lower than ×0.75 of the queries. We additionally find that the adversarial robustness capability is transferable through extraction attacks, i.e., extracted Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) from robust models show an enhanced accuracy to adversarial examples compared to extracted DNNs from naturally trained (i.e. standard) models.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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