DisGUIDE: Disagreement-Guided Data-Free Model Extraction
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 model-extraction attacks on Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) systems have moved towards data-free approaches, showing the feasibility of stealing models trained with difficult-to-access data. However, these attacks are ineffective or limited due to the low accuracy of extracted models and the high number of queries to the models under attack. The high query cost makes such techniques infeasible for online MLaaS systems that charge per query. We create a novel approach to get higher accuracy and query efficiency than prior data-free model extraction techniques. Specifically, we introduce a novel generator training scheme that maximizes the disagreement loss between two clone models that attempt to copy the model under attack. This loss, combined with diversity loss and experience replay, enables the generator to produce better instances to train the clone models. Our evaluation on popular datasets CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 shows that our approach improves the final model accuracy by up to 3.42% and 18.48% respectively. The average number of queries required to achieve the accuracy of the prior state of the art is reduced by up to 64.95%. We hope this will promote future work on feasible data-free model extraction and defenses against such 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| 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