From Model Parameters to Data Quality: Implicit Factor Evaluation of Model Extraction Attacks
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
Abstract Model extraction attacks (MEAs) pose a significant threat to deep learning (DL) models, where adversaries aim to steal the decision behavior of targeted DL models. While several works have shown the ability of a surrogate model to mimic the target DL model, the underlying factors that make a DL model vulnerable to MEAs are unclear. Analyzing these underlying factors is the key to enhancing the security of DL systems. This involves exploring MEAs in diverse scenarios to understand the relationship between their success and the features of DL systems. In this paper, we evaluate the underlying factors influencing MEAs from two crucial perspectives: the model’s intrinsic parameters and the quality of the data used. For the model’s intrinsic parameters, we focus on how the batch size, learning rate, and optimizer influence the effectiveness of MEAs. Regarding data quality, we conduct an in-depth analysis of how data annotation and selection affect MEAs’ success. Our study includes analyzing variations in batch size, five learning rates, eight optimizers, the impact of varying proportions of dirty data, and the effects of subtle changes in data richness. The results of our research reveal a diverse range of susceptibilities to MEAs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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