DeepTracer: Tracing Stolen Model via Deep Coupled Watermarks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model watermarking techniques can embed watermark information into the protected model for ownership declaration by constructing specific input-output pairs. However, existing watermarks are easily removed when facing model stealing attacks, and make it difficult for model owners to effectively verify the copyright of stolen models. In this paper, we analyze the root cause of the failure of current watermarking methods under model stealing scenarios and then explore potential solutions. Specifically, we introduce a robust watermarking framework, DeepTracer, which leverages a novel watermark samples construction method and a same-class coupling loss constraint. DeepTracer can incur a high-coupling model between watermark task and primary task that makes adversaries inevitably learn the hidden watermark task when stealing the primary task functionality. Furthermore, we propose an effective watermark samples filtering mechanism that elaborately select watermark key samples used in model ownership verification to enhance the reliability of watermarks. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets and models demonstrate that our method surpasses existing approaches in defending against various model stealing attacks, as well as watermark attacks, and achieves new state-of-the-art effectiveness and robustness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".