Attacks and Defenses for Generative Diffusion Models: A Comprehensive Survey
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
Diffusion models (DMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on various generative tasks such as image synthesis, text-to-image, and text-guided image-to-image generation. However, the more powerful the DMs, the more harmful they can potentially be. Recent studies have shown that DMs are prone to a wide range of attacks, including adversarial attacks, membership inference attacks, backdoor injection, and various multi-modal threats. Since numerous pre-trained DMs are published widely on the Internet, potential threats from these attacks are especially detrimental to society, making DM-related security a topic worthy of investigation. Therefore, in this article, we conduct a comprehensive survey on the security aspect of DMs, focusing on various attack and defense methods for DMs. First, we present crucial knowledge of DMs with five main types of DMs, including denoising diffusion probabilistic models, denoising diffusion implicit models, noise conditioned score networks, stochastic differential equations, and multi-modal conditional DMs. We provide a comprehensive survey of recent works investigating different types of attacks that exploit the vulnerabilities of DMs. Then, we thoroughly review potential countermeasures to mitigate each of the presented threats. Finally, we discuss open challenges of DM-related security and describe potential research directions for this topic.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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