<scp>Espresso:</scp> Robust Concept Filtering in Text-to-Image Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffusion based text-to-image models are trained on large datasets scraped from the Internet, potentially containing unacceptable concepts (e.g., copyright-infringing or unsafe). We need concept removal techniques (CRTs) which are i) effective in preventing the generation of images with unacceptable concepts, ii) utility-preserving on acceptable concepts, and, iii) robust against evasion with adversarial prompts. No prior CRT satisfies all these requirements simultaneously. We introduce Espresso, the first robust <u>co</u>ncept <u>fi</u>lter based on Contrastive Language-Image Pre-Training (CLIP). We identify unacceptable concepts by using the distance between the embedding of a generated image to the text embeddings of both unacceptable and acceptable concepts. This lets us fine-tune for robustness by separating the text embeddings of unacceptable and acceptable concepts while preserving utility. We present a pipeline to evaluate various CRTs to show that Espresso is more effective and robust than prior CRTs, while retaining utility
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".