Showing 1–43 of 43 results for author: Papernot, N

Regulation Games for Trustworthy Machine Learning

Authors: Mohammad Yaghini, Patty Liu, Franziska Boenisch, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Existing work on trustworthy machine learning (ML) often concentrates on individual aspects of trust, such as fairness or privacy. Additionally, many techniques overlook the distinction between those who train ML models and those responsible for assessing their trustworthiness. To address these issues, we propose a framework that views trustworthy ML as a multi-objective multi-agent optimization p… ▽ More Existing work on trustworthy machine learning (ML) often concentrates on individual aspects of trust, such as fairness or privacy. Additionally, many techniques overlook the distinction between those who train ML models and those responsible for assessing their trustworthiness. To address these issues, we propose a framework that views trustworthy ML as a multi-objective multi-agent optimization problem. This naturally lends itself to a game-theoretic formulation we call regulation games. We illustrate a particular game instance, the SpecGame in which we model the relationship between an ML model builder and fairness and privacy regulators. Regulators wish to design penalties that enforce compliance with their specification, but do not want to discourage builders from participation. Seeking such socially optimal (i.e., efficient for all agents) solutions to the game, we introduce ParetoPlay. This novel equilibrium search algorithm ensures that agents remain on the Pareto frontier of their objectives and avoids the inefficiencies of other equilibria. Simulating SpecGame through ParetoPlay can provide policy guidance for ML Regulation. For instance, we show that for a gender classification application, regulators can enforce a differential privacy budget that is on average 4.0 lower if they take the initiative to specify their desired guarantee first. △ Less

Submitted 5 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Gradients Look Alike: Sensitivity is Often Overestimated in DP-SGD

Authors: Anvith Thudi, Hengrui Jia, Casey Meehan, Ilia Shumailov, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Differentially private stochastic gradient descent (DP-SGD) is the canonical approach to private deep learning. While the current privacy analysis of DP-SGD is known to be tight in some settings, several empirical results suggest that models trained on common benchmark datasets leak significantly less privacy for many datapoints. Yet, despite past attempts, a rigorous explanation for why this is t… ▽ More Differentially private stochastic gradient descent (DP-SGD) is the canonical approach to private deep learning. While the current privacy analysis of DP-SGD is known to be tight in some settings, several empirical results suggest that models trained on common benchmark datasets leak significantly less privacy for many datapoints. Yet, despite past attempts, a rigorous explanation for why this is the case has not been reached. Is it because there exist tighter privacy upper bounds when restricted to these dataset settings, or are our attacks not strong enough for certain datapoints? In this paper, we provide the first per-instance (i.e., ``data-dependent") DP analysis of DP-SGD. Our analysis captures the intuition that points with similar neighbors in the dataset enjoy better data-dependent privacy than outliers. Formally, this is done by modifying the per-step privacy analysis of DP-SGD to introduce a dependence on the distribution of model updates computed from a training dataset. We further develop a new composition theorem to effectively use this new per-step analysis to reason about an entire training run. Put all together, our evaluation shows that this novel DP-SGD analysis allows us to now formally show that DP-SGD leaks significantly less privacy for many datapoints (when trained on common benchmarks) than the current data-independent guarantee. This implies privacy attacks will necessarily fail against many datapoints if the adversary does not have sufficient control over the possible training datasets. △ Less

Submitted 16 July, 2024; v1 submitted 1 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Comments: published in 33rd USENIX Security Symposium

Proof-of-Learning is Currently More Broken Than You Think

Authors: Congyu Fang, Hengrui Jia, Anvith Thudi, Mohammad Yaghini, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Natalie Dullerud, Varun Chandrasekaran, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Proof-of-Learning (PoL) proposes that a model owner logs training checkpoints to establish a proof of having expended the computation necessary for training. The authors of PoL forego cryptographic approaches and trade rigorous security guarantees for scalability to deep learning. They empirically argued the benefit of this approach by showing how spoofing--computing a proof for a stolen model--is… ▽ More Proof-of-Learning (PoL) proposes that a model owner logs training checkpoints to establish a proof of having expended the computation necessary for training. The authors of PoL forego cryptographic approaches and trade rigorous security guarantees for scalability to deep learning. They empirically argued the benefit of this approach by showing how spoofing--computing a proof for a stolen model--is as expensive as obtaining the proof honestly by training the model. However, recent work has provided a counter-example and thus has invalidated this observation. In this work we demonstrate, first, that while it is true that current PoL verification is not robust to adversaries, recent work has largely underestimated this lack of robustness. This is because existing spoofing strategies are either unreproducible or target weakened instantiations of PoL--meaning they are easily thwarted by changing hyperparameters of the verification. Instead, we introduce the first spoofing strategies that can be reproduced across different configurations of the PoL verification and can be done for a fraction of the cost of previous spoofing strategies. This is possible because we identify key vulnerabilities of PoL and systematically analyze the underlying assumptions needed for robust verification of a proof. On the theoretical side, we show how realizing these assumptions reduces to open problems in learning theory.We conclude that one cannot develop a provably robust PoL verification mechanism without further understanding of optimization in deep learning. △ Less

Submitted 17 April, 2023; v1 submitted 6 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Comments: Published in IEEE EuroS&P 2023

$p$-DkNN: Out-of-Distribution Detection Through Statistical Testing of Deep Representations

Authors: Adam Dziedzic, Stephan Rabanser, Mohammad Yaghini, Armin Ale, Murat A. Erdogdu, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: The lack of well-calibrated confidence estimates makes neural networks inadequate in safety-critical domains such as autonomous driving or healthcare. In these settings, having the ability to abstain from making a prediction on out-of-distribution (OOD) data can be as important as correctly classifying in-distribution data. We introduce $p$-DkNN, a novel inference procedure that takes a trained de… ▽ More The lack of well-calibrated confidence estimates makes neural networks inadequate in safety-critical domains such as autonomous driving or healthcare. In these settings, having the ability to abstain from making a prediction on out-of-distribution (OOD) data can be as important as correctly classifying in-distribution data. We introduce $p$-DkNN, a novel inference procedure that takes a trained deep neural network and analyzes the similarity structures of its intermediate hidden representations to compute $p$-values associated with the end-to-end model prediction. The intuition is that statistical tests performed on latent representations can serve not only as a classifier, but also offer a statistically well-founded estimation of uncertainty. $p$-DkNN is scalable and leverages the composition of representations learned by hidden layers, which makes deep representation learning successful. Our theoretical analysis builds on Neyman-Pearson classification and connects it to recent advances in selective classification (reject option). We demonstrate advantageous trade-offs between abstaining from predicting on OOD inputs and maintaining high accuracy on in-distribution inputs. We find that $p$-DkNN forces adaptive attackers crafting adversarial examples, a form of worst-case OOD inputs, to introduce semantically meaningful changes to the inputs. △ Less

Submitted 25 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Intrinsic Anomaly Detection for Multi-Variate Time Series

Authors: Stephan Rabanser, Tim Januschowski, Kashif Rasul, Oliver Borchert, Richard Kurle, Jan Gasthaus, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, Nicolas Papernot, Valentin Flunkert

Abstract: We introduce a novel, practically relevant variation of the anomaly detection problem in multi-variate time series: intrinsic anomaly detection. It appears in diverse practical scenarios ranging from DevOps to IoT, where we want to recognize failures of a system that operates under the influence of a surrounding environment. Intrinsic anomalies are changes in the functional dependency structure be… ▽ More We introduce a novel, practically relevant variation of the anomaly detection problem in multi-variate time series: intrinsic anomaly detection. It appears in diverse practical scenarios ranging from DevOps to IoT, where we want to recognize failures of a system that operates under the influence of a surrounding environment. Intrinsic anomalies are changes in the functional dependency structure between time series that represent an environment and time series that represent the internal state of a system that is placed in said environment. We formalize this problem, provide under-studied public and new purpose-built data sets for it, and present methods that handle intrinsic anomaly detection. These address the short-coming of existing anomaly detection methods that cannot differentiate between expected changes in the system's state and unexpected ones, i.e., changes in the system that deviate from the environment's influence. Our most promising approach is fully unsupervised and combines adversarial learning and time series representation learning, thereby addressing problems such as label sparsity and subjectivity, while allowing to navigate and improve notoriously problematic anomaly detection data sets. △ Less

Submitted 28 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Selective Classification Via Neural Network Training Dynamics

Authors: Stephan Rabanser, Anvith Thudi, Kimia Hamidieh, Adam Dziedzic, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Selective classification is the task of rejecting inputs a model would predict incorrectly on through a trade-off between input space coverage and model accuracy. Current methods for selective classification impose constraints on either the model architecture or the loss function; this inhibits their usage in practice. In contrast to prior work, we show that state-of-the-art selective classificati… ▽ More Selective classification is the task of rejecting inputs a model would predict incorrectly on through a trade-off between input space coverage and model accuracy. Current methods for selective classification impose constraints on either the model architecture or the loss function; this inhibits their usage in practice. In contrast to prior work, we show that state-of-the-art selective classification performance can be attained solely from studying the (discretized) training dynamics of a model. We propose a general framework that, for a given test input, monitors metrics capturing the disagreement with the final predicted label over intermediate models obtained during training; we then reject data points exhibiting too much disagreement at late stages in training. In particular, we instantiate a method that tracks when the label predicted during training stops disagreeing with the final predicted label. Our experimental evaluation shows that our method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy/coverage trade-offs on typical selective classification benchmarks. △ Less

Submitted 12 October, 2022; v1 submitted 26 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Is Fairness Only Metric Deep? Evaluating and Addressing Subgroup Gaps in Deep Metric Learning

Authors: Natalie Dullerud, Karsten Roth, Kimia Hamidieh, Nicolas Papernot, Marzyeh Ghassemi

Abstract: Deep metric learning (DML) enables learning with less supervision through its emphasis on the similarity structure of representations. There has been much work on improving generalization of DML in settings like zero-shot retrieval, but little is known about its implications for fairness. In this paper, we are the first to evaluate state-of-the-art DML methods trained on imbalanced data, and to sh… ▽ More Deep metric learning (DML) enables learning with less supervision through its emphasis on the similarity structure of representations. There has been much work on improving generalization of DML in settings like zero-shot retrieval, but little is known about its implications for fairness. In this paper, we are the first to evaluate state-of-the-art DML methods trained on imbalanced data, and to show the negative impact these representations have on minority subgroup performance when used for downstream tasks. In this work, we first define fairness in DML through an analysis of three properties of the representation space -- inter-class alignment, intra-class alignment, and uniformity -- and propose finDML, the fairness in non-balanced DML benchmark to characterize representation fairness. Utilizing finDML, we find bias in DML representations to propagate to common downstream classification tasks. Surprisingly, this bias is propagated even when training data in the downstream task is re-balanced. To address this problem, we present Partial Attribute De-correlation (PARADE) to de-correlate feature representations from sensitive attributes and reduce performance gaps between subgroups in both embedding space and downstream metrics. △ Less

Submitted 23 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

Comments: Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2022

On the Necessity of Auditable Algorithmic Definitions for Machine Unlearning

Authors: Anvith Thudi, Hengrui Jia, Ilia Shumailov, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Machine unlearning, i.e. having a model forget about some of its training data, has become increasingly more important as privacy legislation promotes variants of the right-to-be-forgotten. In the context of deep learning, approaches for machine unlearning are broadly categorized into two classes: exact unlearning methods, where an entity has formally removed the data point's impact on the model b… ▽ More Machine unlearning, i.e. having a model forget about some of its training data, has become increasingly more important as privacy legislation promotes variants of the right-to-be-forgotten. In the context of deep learning, approaches for machine unlearning are broadly categorized into two classes: exact unlearning methods, where an entity has formally removed the data point's impact on the model by retraining the model from scratch, and approximate unlearning, where an entity approximates the model parameters one would obtain by exact unlearning to save on compute costs. In this paper, we first show that the definition that underlies approximate unlearning, which seeks to prove the approximately unlearned model is close to an exactly retrained model, is incorrect because one can obtain the same model using different datasets. Thus one could unlearn without modifying the model at all. We then turn to exact unlearning approaches and ask how to verify their claims of unlearning. Our results show that even for a given training trajectory one cannot formally prove the absence of certain data points used during training. We thus conclude that unlearning is only well-defined at the algorithmic level, where an entity's only possible auditable claim to unlearning is that they used a particular algorithm designed to allow for external scrutiny during an audit. △ Less

Submitted 19 February, 2022; v1 submitted 22 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: published in 31st USENIX Security Symposium

Dataset Inference: Ownership Resolution in Machine Learning

Authors: Pratyush Maini, Mohammad Yaghini, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: With increasingly more data and computation involved in their training, machine learning models constitute valuable intellectual property. This has spurred interest in model stealing, which is made more practical by advances in learning with partial, little, or no supervision. Existing defenses focus on inserting unique watermarks in a model's decision surface, but this is insufficient: the waterm… ▽ More With increasingly more data and computation involved in their training, machine learning models constitute valuable intellectual property. This has spurred interest in model stealing, which is made more practical by advances in learning with partial, little, or no supervision. Existing defenses focus on inserting unique watermarks in a model's decision surface, but this is insufficient: the watermarks are not sampled from the training distribution and thus are not always preserved during model stealing. In this paper, we make the key observation that knowledge contained in the stolen model's training set is what is common to all stolen copies. The adversary's goal, irrespective of the attack employed, is always to extract this knowledge or its by-products. This gives the original model's owner a strong advantage over the adversary: model owners have access to the original training data. We thus introduce $dataset$ $inference$, the process of identifying whether a suspected model copy has private knowledge from the original model's dataset, as a defense against model stealing. We develop an approach for dataset inference that combines statistical testing with the ability to estimate the distance of multiple data points to the decision boundary. Our experiments on CIFAR10, SVHN, CIFAR100 and ImageNet show that model owners can claim with confidence greater than 99% that their model (or dataset as a matter of fact) was stolen, despite only exposing 50 of the stolen model's training points. Dataset inference defends against state-of-the-art attacks even when the adversary is adaptive. Unlike prior work, it does not require retraining or overfitting the defended model. △ Less

Submitted 21 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Comments: Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2021 (Spotlight Presentation)

Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practice

Authors: Hengrui Jia, Mohammad Yaghini, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Natalie Dullerud, Anvith Thudi, Varun Chandrasekaran, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Training machine learning (ML) models typically involves expensive iterative optimization. Once the model's final parameters are released, there is currently no mechanism for the entity which trained the model to prove that these parameters were indeed the result of this optimization procedure. Such a mechanism would support security of ML applications in several ways. For instance, it would simpl… ▽ More Training machine learning (ML) models typically involves expensive iterative optimization. Once the model's final parameters are released, there is currently no mechanism for the entity which trained the model to prove that these parameters were indeed the result of this optimization procedure. Such a mechanism would support security of ML applications in several ways. For instance, it would simplify ownership resolution when multiple parties contest ownership of a specific model. It would also facilitate the distributed training across untrusted workers where Byzantine workers might otherwise mount a denial-of-service by returning incorrect model updates. In this paper, we remediate this problem by introducing the concept of proof-of-learning in ML. Inspired by research on both proof-of-work and verified computations, we observe how a seminal training algorithm, stochastic gradient descent, accumulates secret information due to its stochasticity. This produces a natural construction for a proof-of-learning which demonstrates that a party has expended the compute require to obtain a set of model parameters correctly. In particular, our analyses and experiments show that an adversary seeking to illegitimately manufacture a proof-of-learning needs to perform *at least* as much work than is needed for gradient descent itself. We also instantiate a concrete proof-of-learning mechanism in both of the scenarios described above. In model ownership resolution, it protects the intellectual property of models released publicly. In distributed training, it preserves availability of the training procedure. Our empirical evaluation validates that our proof-of-learning mechanism is robust to variance induced by the hardware (ML accelerators) and software stacks. △ Less

Submitted 9 March, 2021; originally announced March 2021.

Comments: To appear in the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

Chasing Your Long Tails: Differentially Private Prediction in Health Care Settings

Authors: Vinith M. Suriyakumar, Nicolas Papernot, Anna Goldenberg, Marzyeh Ghassemi

Abstract: Machine learning models in health care are often deployed in settings where it is important to protect patient privacy. In such settings, methods for differentially private (DP) learning provide a general-purpose approach to learn models with privacy guarantees. Modern methods for DP learning ensure privacy through mechanisms that censor information judged as too unique. The resulting privacy-pres… ▽ More Machine learning models in health care are often deployed in settings where it is important to protect patient privacy. In such settings, methods for differentially private (DP) learning provide a general-purpose approach to learn models with privacy guarantees. Modern methods for DP learning ensure privacy through mechanisms that censor information judged as too unique. The resulting privacy-preserving models, therefore, neglect information from the tails of a data distribution, resulting in a loss of accuracy that can disproportionately affect small groups. In this paper, we study the effects of DP learning in health care. We use state-of-the-art methods for DP learning to train privacy-preserving models in clinical prediction tasks, including x-ray classification of images and mortality prediction in time series data. We use these models to perform a comprehensive empirical investigation of the tradeoffs between privacy, utility, robustness to dataset shift, and fairness. Our results highlight lesser-known limitations of methods for DP learning in health care, models that exhibit steep tradeoffs between privacy and utility, and models whose predictions are disproportionately influenced by large demographic groups in the training data. We discuss the costs and benefits of differentially private learning in health care. △ Less

Submitted 13 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks

Authors: Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Florian Tramer, Nicholas Carlini, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Membership inference attacks are one of the simplest forms of privacy leakage for machine learning models: given a data point and model, determine whether the point was used to train the model. Existing membership inference attacks exploit models' abnormal confidence when queried on their training data. These attacks do not apply if the adversary only gets access to models' predicted labels, witho… ▽ More Membership inference attacks are one of the simplest forms of privacy leakage for machine learning models: given a data point and model, determine whether the point was used to train the model. Existing membership inference attacks exploit models' abnormal confidence when queried on their training data. These attacks do not apply if the adversary only gets access to models' predicted labels, without a confidence measure. In this paper, we introduce label-only membership inference attacks. Instead of relying on confidence scores, our attacks evaluate the robustness of a model's predicted labels under perturbations to obtain a fine-grained membership signal. These perturbations include common data augmentations or adversarial examples. We empirically show that our label-only membership inference attacks perform on par with prior attacks that required access to model confidences. We further demonstrate that label-only attacks break multiple defenses against membership inference attacks that (implicitly or explicitly) rely on a phenomenon we call confidence masking. These defenses modify a model's confidence scores in order to thwart attacks, but leave the model's predicted labels unchanged. Our label-only attacks demonstrate that confidence-masking is not a viable defense strategy against membership inference. Finally, we investigate worst-case label-only attacks, that infer membership for a small number of outlier data points. We show that label-only attacks also match confidence-based attacks in this setting. We find that training models with differential privacy and (strong) L2 regularization are the only known defense strategies that successfully prevents all attacks. This remains true even when the differential privacy budget is too high to offer meaningful provable guarantees. △ Less

Submitted 5 December, 2021; v1 submitted 28 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: 16 pages, 11 figures, 2 tables Revision 2: 19 pages, 12 figures, 3 tables. Improved text and additional experiments. Final ICML paper

Tempered Sigmoid Activations for Deep Learning with Differential Privacy

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Abhradeep Thakurta, Shuang Song, Steve Chien, Úlfar Erlingsson

Abstract: Because learning sometimes involves sensitive data, machine learning algorithms have been extended to offer privacy for training data. In practice, this has been mostly an afterthought, with privacy-preserving models obtained by re-running training with a different optimizer, but using the model architectures that already performed well in a non-privacy-preserving setting. This approach leads to l… ▽ More Because learning sometimes involves sensitive data, machine learning algorithms have been extended to offer privacy for training data. In practice, this has been mostly an afterthought, with privacy-preserving models obtained by re-running training with a different optimizer, but using the model architectures that already performed well in a non-privacy-preserving setting. This approach leads to less than ideal privacy/utility tradeoffs, as we show here. Instead, we propose that model architectures are chosen ab initio explicitly for privacy-preserving training. To provide guarantees under the gold standard of differential privacy, one must bound as strictly as possible how individual training points can possibly affect model updates. In this paper, we are the first to observe that the choice of activation function is central to bounding the sensitivity of privacy-preserving deep learning. We demonstrate analytically and experimentally how a general family of bounded activation functions, the tempered sigmoids, consistently outperform unbounded activation functions like ReLU. Using this paradigm, we achieve new state-of-the-art accuracy on MNIST, FashionMNIST, and CIFAR10 without any modification of the learning procedure fundamentals or differential privacy analysis. △ Less

Submitted 28 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Sponge Examples: Energy-Latency Attacks on Neural Networks

Authors: Ilia Shumailov, Yiren Zhao, Daniel Bates, Nicolas Papernot, Robert Mullins, Ross Anderson

Abstract: The high energy costs of neural network training and inference led to the use of acceleration hardware such as GPUs and TPUs. While this enabled us to train large-scale neural networks in datacenters and deploy them on edge devices, the focus so far is on average-case performance. In this work, we introduce a novel threat vector against neural networks whose energy consumption or decision latency… ▽ More The high energy costs of neural network training and inference led to the use of acceleration hardware such as GPUs and TPUs. While this enabled us to train large-scale neural networks in datacenters and deploy them on edge devices, the focus so far is on average-case performance. In this work, we introduce a novel threat vector against neural networks whose energy consumption or decision latency are critical. We show how adversaries can exploit carefully crafted $\boldsymbol{sponge}~\boldsymbol{examples}$, which are inputs designed to maximise energy consumption and latency. We mount two variants of this attack on established vision and language models, increasing energy consumption by a factor of 10 to 200. Our attacks can also be used to delay decisions where a network has critical real-time performance, such as in perception for autonomous vehicles. We demonstrate the portability of our malicious inputs across CPUs and a variety of hardware accelerator chips including GPUs, and an ASIC simulator. We conclude by proposing a defense strategy which mitigates our attack by shifting the analysis of energy consumption in hardware from an average-case to a worst-case perspective. △ Less

Submitted 12 May, 2021; v1 submitted 5 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Comments: Accepted at 6th IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P)

SOAR: Second-Order Adversarial Regularization

Authors: Avery Ma, Fartash Faghri, Nicolas Papernot, Amir-massoud Farahmand

Abstract: Adversarial training is a common approach to improving the robustness of deep neural networks against adversarial examples. In this work, we propose a novel regularization approach as an alternative. To derive the regularizer, we formulate the adversarial robustness problem under the robust optimization framework and approximate the loss function using a second-order Taylor series expansion. Our p… ▽ More Adversarial training is a common approach to improving the robustness of deep neural networks against adversarial examples. In this work, we propose a novel regularization approach as an alternative. To derive the regularizer, we formulate the adversarial robustness problem under the robust optimization framework and approximate the loss function using a second-order Taylor series expansion. Our proposed second-order adversarial regularizer (SOAR) is an upper bound based on the Taylor approximation of the inner-max in the robust optimization objective. We empirically show that the proposed method significantly improves the robustness of networks against the $\ell_\infty$ and $\ell_2$ bounded perturbations generated using cross-entropy-based PGD on CIFAR-10 and SVHN. △ Less

Submitted 7 February, 2021; v1 submitted 3 April, 2020; originally announced April 2020.

On the Robustness of Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Jieyu Lin, Kristina Dzeparoska, Sai Qian Zhang, Alberto Leon-Garcia, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: In cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (c-MARL), agents learn to cooperatively take actions as a team to maximize a total team reward. We analyze the robustness of c-MARL to adversaries capable of attacking one of the agents on a team. Through the ability to manipulate this agent's observations, the adversary seeks to decrease the total team reward. Attacking c-MARL is challenging for… ▽ More In cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (c-MARL), agents learn to cooperatively take actions as a team to maximize a total team reward. We analyze the robustness of c-MARL to adversaries capable of attacking one of the agents on a team. Through the ability to manipulate this agent's observations, the adversary seeks to decrease the total team reward. Attacking c-MARL is challenging for three reasons: first, it is difficult to estimate team rewards or how they are impacted by an agent mispredicting; second, models are non-differentiable; and third, the feature space is low-dimensional. Thus, we introduce a novel attack. The attacker first trains a policy network with reinforcement learning to find a wrong action it should encourage the victim agent to take. Then, the adversary uses targeted adversarial examples to force the victim to take this action. Our results on the StartCraft II multi-agent benchmark demonstrate that c-MARL teams are highly vulnerable to perturbations applied to one of their agent's observations. By attacking a single agent, our attack method has highly negative impact on the overall team reward, reducing it from 20 to 9.4. This results in the team's winning rate to go down from 98.9% to 0%. △ Less

Submitted 8 March, 2020; originally announced March 2020.

Entangled Watermarks as a Defense against Model Extraction

Authors: Hengrui Jia, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Varun Chandrasekaran, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Machine learning involves expensive data collection and training procedures. Model owners may be concerned that valuable intellectual property can be leaked if adversaries mount model extraction attacks. As it is difficult to defend against model extraction without sacrificing significant prediction accuracy, watermarking instead leverages unused model capacity to have the model overfit to outlier… ▽ More Machine learning involves expensive data collection and training procedures. Model owners may be concerned that valuable intellectual property can be leaked if adversaries mount model extraction attacks. As it is difficult to defend against model extraction without sacrificing significant prediction accuracy, watermarking instead leverages unused model capacity to have the model overfit to outlier input-output pairs. Such pairs are watermarks, which are not sampled from the task distribution and are only known to the defender. The defender then demonstrates knowledge of the input-output pairs to claim ownership of the model at inference. The effectiveness of watermarks remains limited because they are distinct from the task distribution and can thus be easily removed through compression or other forms of knowledge transfer. We introduce Entangled Watermarking Embeddings (EWE). Our approach encourages the model to learn features for classifying data that is sampled from the task distribution and data that encodes watermarks. An adversary attempting to remove watermarks that are entangled with legitimate data is also forced to sacrifice performance on legitimate data. Experiments on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, and Speech Commands validate that the defender can claim model ownership with 95\% confidence with less than 100 queries to the stolen copy, at a modest cost below 0.81 percentage points on average in the defended model's performance. △ Less

Submitted 19 February, 2021; v1 submitted 27 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.

Comments: published in 30th USENIX Security Symposium

Fundamental Tradeoffs between Invariance and Sensitivity to Adversarial Perturbations

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Jens Behrmann, Nicholas Carlini, Nicolas Papernot, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen

Abstract: Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to induce misclassification. Commonly studied sensitivity-based adversarial examples introduce semantically-small changes to an input that result in a different model prediction. This paper studies a complementary failure mode, invariance-based adversarial examples, that introduce minimal semantic changes that modify an input's true label yet prese… ▽ More Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to induce misclassification. Commonly studied sensitivity-based adversarial examples introduce semantically-small changes to an input that result in a different model prediction. This paper studies a complementary failure mode, invariance-based adversarial examples, that introduce minimal semantic changes that modify an input's true label yet preserve the model's prediction. We demonstrate fundamental tradeoffs between these two types of adversarial examples. We show that defenses against sensitivity-based attacks actively harm a model's accuracy on invariance-based attacks, and that new approaches are needed to resist both attack types. In particular, we break state-of-the-art adversarially-trained and certifiably-robust models by generating small perturbations that the models are (provably) robust to, yet that change an input's class according to human labelers. Finally, we formally show that the existence of excessively invariant classifiers arises from the presence of overly-robust predictive features in standard datasets. △ Less

Submitted 4 August, 2020; v1 submitted 11 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.

Comments: ICML 2020 (Supersedes the workshop paper "Exploiting Excessive Invariance caused by Norm-Bounded Adversarial Robustness", arXiv:1903.10484)

Distribution Density, Tails, and Outliers in Machine Learning: Metrics and Applications

Authors: Nicholas Carlini, Úlfar Erlingsson, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: We develop techniques to quantify the degree to which a given (training or testing) example is an outlier in the underlying distribution. We evaluate five methods to score examples in a dataset by how well-represented the examples are, for different plausible definitions of "well-represented", and apply these to four common datasets: MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, and ImageNet. Despite being inde… ▽ More We develop techniques to quantify the degree to which a given (training or testing) example is an outlier in the underlying distribution. We evaluate five methods to score examples in a dataset by how well-represented the examples are, for different plausible definitions of "well-represented", and apply these to four common datasets: MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, and ImageNet. Despite being independent approaches, we find all five are highly correlated, suggesting that the notion of being well-represented can be quantified. Among other uses, we find these methods can be combined to identify (a) prototypical examples (that match human expectations); (b) memorized training examples; and, (c) uncommon submodes of the dataset. Further, we show how we can utilize our metrics to determine an improved ordering for curriculum learning, and impact adversarial robustness. We release all metric values on training and test sets we studied. △ Less

Submitted 29 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

Improving Differentially Private Models with Active Learning

Authors: Zhengli Zhao, Nicolas Papernot, Sameer Singh, Neoklis Polyzotis, Augustus Odena

Abstract: Broad adoption of machine learning techniques has increased privacy concerns for models trained on sensitive data such as medical records. Existing techniques for training differentially private (DP) models give rigorous privacy guarantees, but applying these techniques to neural networks can severely degrade model performance. This performance reduction is an obstacle to deploying private models… ▽ More Broad adoption of machine learning techniques has increased privacy concerns for models trained on sensitive data such as medical records. Existing techniques for training differentially private (DP) models give rigorous privacy guarantees, but applying these techniques to neural networks can severely degrade model performance. This performance reduction is an obstacle to deploying private models in the real world. In this work, we improve the performance of DP models by fine-tuning them through active learning on public data. We introduce two new techniques - DIVERSEPUBLIC and NEARPRIVATE - for doing this fine-tuning in a privacy-aware way. For the MNIST and SVHN datasets, these techniques improve state-of-the-art accuracy for DP models while retaining privacy guarantees. △ Less

Submitted 2 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

High Accuracy and High Fidelity Extraction of Neural Networks

Authors: Matthew Jagielski, Nicholas Carlini, David Berthelot, Alex Kurakin, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: In a model extraction attack, an adversary steals a copy of a remotely deployed machine learning model, given oracle prediction access. We taxonomize model extraction attacks around two objectives: *accuracy*, i.e., performing well on the underlying learning task, and *fidelity*, i.e., matching the predictions of the remote victim classifier on any input. To extract a high-accuracy model, we dev… ▽ More In a model extraction attack, an adversary steals a copy of a remotely deployed machine learning model, given oracle prediction access. We taxonomize model extraction attacks around two objectives: *accuracy*, i.e., performing well on the underlying learning task, and *fidelity*, i.e., matching the predictions of the remote victim classifier on any input. To extract a high-accuracy model, we develop a learning-based attack exploiting the victim to supervise the training of an extracted model. Through analytical and empirical arguments, we then explain the inherent limitations that prevent any learning-based strategy from extracting a truly high-fidelity model---i.e., extracting a functionally-equivalent model whose predictions are identical to those of the victim model on all possible inputs. Addressing these limitations, we expand on prior work to develop the first practical functionally-equivalent extraction attack for direct extraction (i.e., without training) of a model's weights. We perform experiments both on academic datasets and a state-of-the-art image classifier trained with 1 billion proprietary images. In addition to broadening the scope of model extraction research, our work demonstrates the practicality of model extraction attacks against production-grade systems. △ Less

Submitted 3 March, 2020; v1 submitted 3 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Comments: USENIX Security 2020, 18 pages, 6 figures

How Relevant is the Turing Test in the Age of Sophisbots?

Authors: Dan Boneh, Andrew J. Grotto, Patrick McDaniel, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Popular culture has contemplated societies of thinking machines for generations, envisioning futures from utopian to dystopian. These futures are, arguably, here now-we find ourselves at the doorstep of technology that can at least simulate the appearance of thinking, acting, and feeling. The real question is: now what? Popular culture has contemplated societies of thinking machines for generations, envisioning futures from utopian to dystopian. These futures are, arguably, here now-we find ourselves at the doorstep of technology that can at least simulate the appearance of thinking, acting, and feeling. The real question is: now what? △ Less

Submitted 30 August, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Rearchitecting Classification Frameworks For Increased Robustness

Authors: Varun Chandrasekaran, Brian Tang, Nicolas Papernot, Kassem Fawaz, Somesh Jha, Xi Wu

Abstract: While generalizing well over natural inputs, neural networks are vulnerable to adversarial inputs. Existing defenses against adversarial inputs have largely been detached from the real world. These defenses also come at a cost to accuracy. Fortunately, there are invariances of an object that are its salient features; when we break them it will necessarily change the perception of the object. We fi… ▽ More While generalizing well over natural inputs, neural networks are vulnerable to adversarial inputs. Existing defenses against adversarial inputs have largely been detached from the real world. These defenses also come at a cost to accuracy. Fortunately, there are invariances of an object that are its salient features; when we break them it will necessarily change the perception of the object. We find that applying invariants to the classification task makes robustness and accuracy feasible together. Two questions follow: how to extract and model these invariances? and how to design a classification paradigm that leverages these invariances to improve the robustness accuracy trade-off? The remainder of the paper discusses solutions to the aformenetioned questions. △ Less

Submitted 3 December, 2019; v1 submitted 26 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

MixMatch: A Holistic Approach to Semi-Supervised Learning

Authors: David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Ian Goodfellow, Nicolas Papernot, Avital Oliver, Colin Raffel

Abstract: Semi-supervised learning has proven to be a powerful paradigm for leveraging unlabeled data to mitigate the reliance on large labeled datasets. In this work, we unify the current dominant approaches for semi-supervised learning to produce a new algorithm, MixMatch, that works by guessing low-entropy labels for data-augmented unlabeled examples and mixing labeled and unlabeled data using MixUp. We… ▽ More Semi-supervised learning has proven to be a powerful paradigm for leveraging unlabeled data to mitigate the reliance on large labeled datasets. In this work, we unify the current dominant approaches for semi-supervised learning to produce a new algorithm, MixMatch, that works by guessing low-entropy labels for data-augmented unlabeled examples and mixing labeled and unlabeled data using MixUp. We show that MixMatch obtains state-of-the-art results by a large margin across many datasets and labeled data amounts. For example, on CIFAR-10 with 250 labels, we reduce error rate by a factor of 4 (from 38% to 11%) and by a factor of 2 on STL-10. We also demonstrate how MixMatch can help achieve a dramatically better accuracy-privacy trade-off for differential privacy. Finally, we perform an ablation study to tease apart which components of MixMatch are most important for its success. △ Less

Submitted 23 October, 2019; v1 submitted 6 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

Exploiting Excessive Invariance caused by Norm-Bounded Adversarial Robustness

Authors: Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Jens Behrmannn, Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to cause a model to misclassify them. Their most common instantiation, "perturbation-based" adversarial examples introduce changes to the input that leave its true label unchanged, yet result in a different model prediction. Conversely, "invariance-based" adversarial examples insert changes to the input that leave the model's prediction unaffected… ▽ More Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to cause a model to misclassify them. Their most common instantiation, "perturbation-based" adversarial examples introduce changes to the input that leave its true label unchanged, yet result in a different model prediction. Conversely, "invariance-based" adversarial examples insert changes to the input that leave the model's prediction unaffected despite the underlying input's label having changed. In this paper, we demonstrate that robustness to perturbation-based adversarial examples is not only insufficient for general robustness, but worse, it can also increase vulnerability of the model to invariance-based adversarial examples. In addition to analytical constructions, we empirically study vision classifiers with state-of-the-art robustness to perturbation-based adversaries constrained by an $\ell_p$ norm. We mount attacks that exploit excessive model invariance in directions relevant to the task, which are able to find adversarial examples within the $\ell_p$ ball. In fact, we find that classifiers trained to be $\ell_p$-norm robust are more vulnerable to invariance-based adversarial examples than their undefended counterparts. Excessive invariance is not limited to models trained to be robust to perturbation-based $\ell_p$-norm adversaries. In fact, we argue that the term adversarial example is used to capture a series of model limitations, some of which may not have been discovered yet. Accordingly, we call for a set of precise definitions that taxonomize and address each of these shortcomings in learning. △ Less

Submitted 25 March, 2019; originally announced March 2019.

Comments: Accepted at the ICLR 2019 SafeML Workshop

On Evaluating Adversarial Robustness

Authors: Nicholas Carlini, Anish Athalye, Nicolas Papernot, Wieland Brendel, Jonas Rauber, Dimitris Tsipras, Ian Goodfellow, Aleksander Madry, Alexey Kurakin

Abstract: Correctly evaluating defenses against adversarial examples has proven to be extremely difficult. Despite the significant amount of recent work attempting to design defenses that withstand adaptive attacks, few have succeeded; most papers that propose defenses are quickly shown to be incorrect. We believe a large contributing factor is the difficulty of performing security evaluations. In this pa… ▽ More Correctly evaluating defenses against adversarial examples has proven to be extremely difficult. Despite the significant amount of recent work attempting to design defenses that withstand adaptive attacks, few have succeeded; most papers that propose defenses are quickly shown to be incorrect. We believe a large contributing factor is the difficulty of performing security evaluations. In this paper, we discuss the methodological foundations, review commonly accepted best practices, and suggest new methods for evaluating defenses to adversarial examples. We hope that both researchers developing defenses as well as readers and reviewers who wish to understand the completeness of an evaluation consider our advice in order to avoid common pitfalls. △ Less

Submitted 20 February, 2019; v1 submitted 18 February, 2019; originally announced February 2019.

Comments: Living document; source available at https://github.com/evaluating-adversarial-robustness/adv-eval-paper/

Analyzing and Improving Representations with the Soft Nearest Neighbor Loss

Authors: Nicholas Frosst, Nicolas Papernot, Geoffrey Hinton

Abstract: We explore and expand the $\textit{Soft Nearest Neighbor Loss}$ to measure the $\textit{entanglement}$ of class manifolds in representation space: i.e., how close pairs of points from the same class are relative to pairs of points from different classes. We demonstrate several use cases of the loss. As an analytical tool, it provides insights into the evolution of class similarity structures durin… ▽ More We explore and expand the $\textit{Soft Nearest Neighbor Loss}$ to measure the $\textit{entanglement}$ of class manifolds in representation space: i.e., how close pairs of points from the same class are relative to pairs of points from different classes. We demonstrate several use cases of the loss. As an analytical tool, it provides insights into the evolution of class similarity structures during learning. Surprisingly, we find that $\textit{maximizing}$ the entanglement of representations of different classes in the hidden layers is beneficial for discrimination in the final layer, possibly because it encourages representations to identify class-independent similarity structures. Maximizing the soft nearest neighbor loss in the hidden layers leads not only to improved generalization but also to better-calibrated estimates of uncertainty on outlier data. Data that is not from the training distribution can be recognized by observing that in the hidden layers, it has fewer than the normal number of neighbors from the predicted class. △ Less

Submitted 5 February, 2019; originally announced February 2019.

A General Approach to Adding Differential Privacy to Iterative Training Procedures

Authors: H. Brendan McMahan, Galen Andrew, Ulfar Erlingsson, Steve Chien, Ilya Mironov, Nicolas Papernot, Peter Kairouz

Abstract: In this work we address the practical challenges of training machine learning models on privacy-sensitive datasets by introducing a modular approach that minimizes changes to training algorithms, provides a variety of configuration strategies for the privacy mechanism, and then isolates and simplifies the critical logic that computes the final privacy guarantees. A key challenge is that training a… ▽ More In this work we address the practical challenges of training machine learning models on privacy-sensitive datasets by introducing a modular approach that minimizes changes to training algorithms, provides a variety of configuration strategies for the privacy mechanism, and then isolates and simplifies the critical logic that computes the final privacy guarantees. A key challenge is that training algorithms often require estimating many different quantities (vectors) from the same set of examples --- for example, gradients of different layers in a deep learning architecture, as well as metrics and batch normalization parameters. Each of these may have different properties like dimensionality, magnitude, and tolerance to noise. By extending previous work on the Moments Accountant for the subsampled Gaussian mechanism, we can provide privacy for such heterogeneous sets of vectors, while also structuring the approach to minimize software engineering challenges. △ Less

Submitted 4 March, 2019; v1 submitted 14 December, 2018; originally announced December 2018.

Comments: Presented at NeurIPS 2018 workshop on Privacy Preserving Machine Learning; Companion paper to TensorFlow Privacy OSS Library

Adversarial Vision Challenge

Authors: Wieland Brendel, Jonas Rauber, Alexey Kurakin, Nicolas Papernot, Behar Veliqi, Marcel Salathé, Sharada P. Mohanty, Matthias Bethge

Abstract: The NIPS 2018 Adversarial Vision Challenge is a competition to facilitate measurable progress towards robust machine vision models and more generally applicable adversarial attacks. This document is an updated version of our competition proposal that was accepted in the competition track of 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018). The NIPS 2018 Adversarial Vision Challenge is a competition to facilitate measurable progress towards robust machine vision models and more generally applicable adversarial attacks. This document is an updated version of our competition proposal that was accepted in the competition track of 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018). △ Less

Submitted 6 December, 2018; v1 submitted 6 August, 2018; originally announced August 2018.

Comments: https://www.crowdai.org/challenges/adversarial-vision-challenge

Deep k-Nearest Neighbors: Towards Confident, Interpretable and Robust Deep Learning

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel

Abstract: Deep neural networks (DNNs) enable innovative applications of machine learning like image recognition, machine translation, or malware detection. However, deep learning is often criticized for its lack of robustness in adversarial settings (e.g., vulnerability to adversarial inputs) and general inability to rationalize its predictions. In this work, we exploit the structure of deep learning to ena… ▽ More Deep neural networks (DNNs) enable innovative applications of machine learning like image recognition, machine translation, or malware detection. However, deep learning is often criticized for its lack of robustness in adversarial settings (e.g., vulnerability to adversarial inputs) and general inability to rationalize its predictions. In this work, we exploit the structure of deep learning to enable new learning-based inference and decision strategies that achieve desirable properties such as robustness and interpretability. We take a first step in this direction and introduce the Deep k-Nearest Neighbors (DkNN). This hybrid classifier combines the k-nearest neighbors algorithm with representations of the data learned by each layer of the DNN: a test input is compared to its neighboring training points according to the distance that separates them in the representations. We show the labels of these neighboring points afford confidence estimates for inputs outside the model's training manifold, including on malicious inputs like adversarial examples--and therein provides protections against inputs that are outside the models understanding. This is because the nearest neighbors can be used to estimate the nonconformity of, i.e., the lack of support for, a prediction in the training data. The neighbors also constitute human-interpretable explanations of predictions. We evaluate the DkNN algorithm on several datasets, and show the confidence estimates accurately identify inputs outside the model, and that the explanations provided by nearest neighbors are intuitive and useful in understanding model failures. △ Less

Submitted 13 March, 2018; originally announced March 2018.

Scalable Private Learning with PATE

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Shuang Song, Ilya Mironov, Ananth Raghunathan, Kunal Talwar, Úlfar Erlingsson

Abstract: The rapid adoption of machine learning has increased concerns about the privacy implications of machine learning models trained on sensitive data, such as medical records or other personal information. To address those concerns, one promising approach is Private Aggregation of Teacher Ensembles, or PATE, which transfers to a "student" model the knowledge of an ensemble of "teacher" models, with in… ▽ More The rapid adoption of machine learning has increased concerns about the privacy implications of machine learning models trained on sensitive data, such as medical records or other personal information. To address those concerns, one promising approach is Private Aggregation of Teacher Ensembles, or PATE, which transfers to a "student" model the knowledge of an ensemble of "teacher" models, with intuitive privacy provided by training teachers on disjoint data and strong privacy guaranteed by noisy aggregation of teachers' answers. However, PATE has so far been evaluated only on simple classification tasks like MNIST, leaving unclear its utility when applied to larger-scale learning tasks and real-world datasets. In this work, we show how PATE can scale to learning tasks with large numbers of output classes and uncurated, imbalanced training data with errors. For this, we introduce new noisy aggregation mechanisms for teacher ensembles that are more selective and add less noise, and prove their tighter differential-privacy guarantees. Our new mechanisms build on two insights: the chance of teacher consensus is increased by using more concentrated noise and, lacking consensus, no answer need be given to a student. The consensus answers used are more likely to be correct, offer better intuitive privacy, and incur lower-differential privacy cost. Our evaluation shows our mechanisms improve on the original PATE on all measures, and scale to larger tasks with both high utility and very strong privacy ($\varepsilon$ < 1.0). △ Less

Submitted 24 February, 2018; originally announced February 2018.

Comments: Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2018

Adversarial Examples that Fool both Computer Vision and Time-Limited Humans

Authors: Gamaleldin F. Elsayed, Shreya Shankar, Brian Cheung, Nicolas Papernot, Alex Kurakin, Ian Goodfellow, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein

Abstract: Machine learning models are vulnerable to adversarial examples: small changes to images can cause computer vision models to make mistakes such as identifying a school bus as an ostrich. However, it is still an open question whether humans are prone to similar mistakes. Here, we address this question by leveraging recent techniques that transfer adversarial examples from computer vision models with… ▽ More Machine learning models are vulnerable to adversarial examples: small changes to images can cause computer vision models to make mistakes such as identifying a school bus as an ostrich. However, it is still an open question whether humans are prone to similar mistakes. Here, we address this question by leveraging recent techniques that transfer adversarial examples from computer vision models with known parameters and architecture to other models with unknown parameters and architecture, and by matching the initial processing of the human visual system. We find that adversarial examples that strongly transfer across computer vision models influence the classifications made by time-limited human observers. △ Less

Submitted 21 May, 2018; v1 submitted 22 February, 2018; originally announced February 2018.

Journal ref: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018

On the Protection of Private Information in Machine Learning Systems: Two Recent Approaches

Authors: Martín Abadi, Úlfar Erlingsson, Ian Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Nicolas Papernot, Kunal Talwar, Li Zhang

Abstract: The recent, remarkable growth of machine learning has led to intense interest in the privacy of the data on which machine learning relies, and to new techniques for preserving privacy. However, older ideas about privacy may well remain valid and useful. This note reviews two recent works on privacy in the light of the wisdom of some of the early literature, in particular the principles distilled b… ▽ More The recent, remarkable growth of machine learning has led to intense interest in the privacy of the data on which machine learning relies, and to new techniques for preserving privacy. However, older ideas about privacy may well remain valid and useful. This note reviews two recent works on privacy in the light of the wisdom of some of the early literature, in particular the principles distilled by Saltzer and Schroeder in the 1970s. △ Less

Submitted 26 August, 2017; originally announced August 2017.

Journal ref: IEEE 30th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), pages 1--6, 2017

Ensemble Adversarial Training: Attacks and Defenses

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Alexey Kurakin, Nicolas Papernot, Ian Goodfellow, Dan Boneh, Patrick McDaniel

Abstract: Adversarial examples are perturbed inputs designed to fool machine learning models. Adversarial training injects such examples into training data to increase robustness. To scale this technique to large datasets, perturbations are crafted using fast single-step methods that maximize a linear approximation of the model's loss. We show that this form of adversarial training converges to a degenerate… ▽ More Adversarial examples are perturbed inputs designed to fool machine learning models. Adversarial training injects such examples into training data to increase robustness. To scale this technique to large datasets, perturbations are crafted using fast single-step methods that maximize a linear approximation of the model's loss. We show that this form of adversarial training converges to a degenerate global minimum, wherein small curvature artifacts near the data points obfuscate a linear approximation of the loss. The model thus learns to generate weak perturbations, rather than defend against strong ones. As a result, we find that adversarial training remains vulnerable to black-box attacks, where we transfer perturbations computed on undefended models, as well as to a powerful novel single-step attack that escapes the non-smooth vicinity of the input data via a small random step. We further introduce Ensemble Adversarial Training, a technique that augments training data with perturbations transferred from other models. On ImageNet, Ensemble Adversarial Training yields models with strong robustness to black-box attacks. In particular, our most robust model won the first round of the NIPS 2017 competition on Defenses against Adversarial Attacks. However, subsequent work found that more elaborate black-box attacks could significantly enhance transferability and reduce the accuracy of our models. △ Less

Submitted 26 April, 2020; v1 submitted 19 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

Comments: 22 pages, 5 figures, International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) 2018 (amended in April 2020 to include subsequent attacks that significantly reduced the robustness of our models)

Extending Defensive Distillation

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel

Abstract: Machine learning is vulnerable to adversarial examples: inputs carefully modified to force misclassification. Designing defenses against such inputs remains largely an open problem. In this work, we revisit defensive distillation---which is one of the mechanisms proposed to mitigate adversarial examples---to address its limitations. We view our results not only as an effective way of addressing so… ▽ More Machine learning is vulnerable to adversarial examples: inputs carefully modified to force misclassification. Designing defenses against such inputs remains largely an open problem. In this work, we revisit defensive distillation---which is one of the mechanisms proposed to mitigate adversarial examples---to address its limitations. We view our results not only as an effective way of addressing some of the recently discovered attacks but also as reinforcing the importance of improved training techniques. △ Less

Submitted 15 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

The Space of Transferable Adversarial Examples

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Nicolas Papernot, Ian Goodfellow, Dan Boneh, Patrick McDaniel

Abstract: Adversarial examples are maliciously perturbed inputs designed to mislead machine learning (ML) models at test-time. They often transfer: the same adversarial example fools more than one model. In this work, we propose novel methods for estimating the previously unknown dimensionality of the space of adversarial inputs. We find that adversarial examples span a contiguous subspace of large (~25)… ▽ More Adversarial examples are maliciously perturbed inputs designed to mislead machine learning (ML) models at test-time. They often transfer: the same adversarial example fools more than one model. In this work, we propose novel methods for estimating the previously unknown dimensionality of the space of adversarial inputs. We find that adversarial examples span a contiguous subspace of large (~25) dimensionality. Adversarial subspaces with higher dimensionality are more likely to intersect. We find that for two different models, a significant fraction of their subspaces is shared, thus enabling transferability. In the first quantitative analysis of the similarity of different models' decision boundaries, we show that these boundaries are actually close in arbitrary directions, whether adversarial or benign. We conclude by formally studying the limits of transferability. We derive (1) sufficient conditions on the data distribution that imply transferability for simple model classes and (2) examples of scenarios in which transfer does not occur. These findings indicate that it may be possible to design defenses against transfer-based attacks, even for models that are vulnerable to direct attacks. △ Less

Submitted 23 May, 2017; v1 submitted 11 April, 2017; originally announced April 2017.

Comments: 15 pages, 7 figures

On the (Statistical) Detection of Adversarial Examples

Authors: Kathrin Grosse, Praveen Manoharan, Nicolas Papernot, Michael Backes, Patrick McDaniel

Abstract: Machine Learning (ML) models are applied in a variety of tasks such as network intrusion detection or Malware classification. Yet, these models are vulnerable to a class of malicious inputs known as adversarial examples. These are slightly perturbed inputs that are classified incorrectly by the ML model. The mitigation of these adversarial inputs remains an open problem. As a step towards understa… ▽ More Machine Learning (ML) models are applied in a variety of tasks such as network intrusion detection or Malware classification. Yet, these models are vulnerable to a class of malicious inputs known as adversarial examples. These are slightly perturbed inputs that are classified incorrectly by the ML model. The mitigation of these adversarial inputs remains an open problem. As a step towards understanding adversarial examples, we show that they are not drawn from the same distribution than the original data, and can thus be detected using statistical tests. Using thus knowledge, we introduce a complimentary approach to identify specific inputs that are adversarial. Specifically, we augment our ML model with an additional output, in which the model is trained to classify all adversarial inputs. We evaluate our approach on multiple adversarial example crafting methods (including the fast gradient sign and saliency map methods) with several datasets. The statistical test flags sample sets containing adversarial inputs confidently at sample sizes between 10 and 100 data points. Furthermore, our augmented model either detects adversarial examples as outliers with high accuracy (> 80%) or increases the adversary's cost - the perturbation added - by more than 150%. In this way, we show that statistical properties of adversarial examples are essential to their detection. △ Less

Submitted 17 October, 2017; v1 submitted 21 February, 2017; originally announced February 2017.

Comments: 13 pages, 4 figures, 5 tables. New version: improved writing, incorporating external feedback

Adversarial Attacks on Neural Network Policies

Authors: Sandy Huang, Nicolas Papernot, Ian Goodfellow, Yan Duan, Pieter Abbeel

Abstract: Machine learning classifiers are known to be vulnerable to inputs maliciously constructed by adversaries to force misclassification. Such adversarial examples have been extensively studied in the context of computer vision applications. In this work, we show adversarial attacks are also effective when targeting neural network policies in reinforcement learning. Specifically, we show existing adver… ▽ More Machine learning classifiers are known to be vulnerable to inputs maliciously constructed by adversaries to force misclassification. Such adversarial examples have been extensively studied in the context of computer vision applications. In this work, we show adversarial attacks are also effective when targeting neural network policies in reinforcement learning. Specifically, we show existing adversarial example crafting techniques can be used to significantly degrade test-time performance of trained policies. Our threat model considers adversaries capable of introducing small perturbations to the raw input of the policy. We characterize the degree of vulnerability across tasks and training algorithms, for a subclass of adversarial-example attacks in white-box and black-box settings. Regardless of the learned task or training algorithm, we observe a significant drop in performance, even with small adversarial perturbations that do not interfere with human perception. Videos are available at http://rll.berkeley.edu/adversarial. △ Less

Submitted 7 February, 2017; originally announced February 2017.

Semi-supervised Knowledge Transfer for Deep Learning from Private Training Data

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Martín Abadi, Úlfar Erlingsson, Ian Goodfellow, Kunal Talwar

Abstract: Some machine learning applications involve training data that is sensitive, such as the medical histories of patients in a clinical trial. A model may inadvertently and implicitly store some of its training data; careful analysis of the model may therefore reveal sensitive information. To address this problem, we demonstrate a generally applicable approach to providing strong privacy guarantees… ▽ More Some machine learning applications involve training data that is sensitive, such as the medical histories of patients in a clinical trial. A model may inadvertently and implicitly store some of its training data; careful analysis of the model may therefore reveal sensitive information. To address this problem, we demonstrate a generally applicable approach to providing strong privacy guarantees for training data: Private Aggregation of Teacher Ensembles (PATE). The approach combines, in a black-box fashion, multiple models trained with disjoint datasets, such as records from different subsets of users. Because they rely directly on sensitive data, these models are not published, but instead used as "teachers" for a "student" model. The student learns to predict an output chosen by noisy voting among all of the teachers, and cannot directly access an individual teacher or the underlying data or parameters. The student's privacy properties can be understood both intuitively (since no single teacher and thus no single dataset dictates the student's training) and formally, in terms of differential privacy. These properties hold even if an adversary can not only query the student but also inspect its internal workings. Compared with previous work, the approach imposes only weak assumptions on how teachers are trained: it applies to any model, including non-convex models like DNNs. We achieve state-of-the-art privacy/utility trade-offs on MNIST and SVHN thanks to an improved privacy analysis and semi-supervised learning. △ Less

Submitted 3 March, 2017; v1 submitted 18 October, 2016; originally announced October 2016.

Comments: Accepted to ICLR 17 as an oral

Technical Report on the CleverHans v2.1.0 Adversarial Examples Library

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Fartash Faghri, Nicholas Carlini, Ian Goodfellow, Reuben Feinman, Alexey Kurakin, Cihang Xie, Yash Sharma, Tom Brown, Aurko Roy, Alexander Matyasko, Vahid Behzadan, Karen Hambardzumyan, Zhishuai Zhang, Yi-Lin Juang, Zhi Li, Ryan Sheatsley, Abhibhav Garg, Jonathan Uesato, Willi Gierke, Yinpeng Dong, David Berthelot, Paul Hendricks, Jonas Rauber, Rujun Long , et al. (1 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: CleverHans is a software library that provides standardized reference implementations of adversarial example construction techniques and adversarial training. The library may be used to develop more robust machine learning models and to provide standardized benchmarks of models' performance in the adversarial setting. Benchmarks constructed without a standardized implementation of adversarial exam… ▽ More CleverHans is a software library that provides standardized reference implementations of adversarial example construction techniques and adversarial training. The library may be used to develop more robust machine learning models and to provide standardized benchmarks of models' performance in the adversarial setting. Benchmarks constructed without a standardized implementation of adversarial example construction are not comparable to each other, because a good result may indicate a robust model or it may merely indicate a weak implementation of the adversarial example construction procedure. This technical report is structured as follows. Section 1 provides an overview of adversarial examples in machine learning and of the CleverHans software. Section 2 presents the core functionalities of the library: namely the attacks based on adversarial examples and defenses to improve the robustness of machine learning models to these attacks. Section 3 describes how to report benchmark results using the library. Section 4 describes the versioning system. △ Less

Submitted 27 June, 2018; v1 submitted 3 October, 2016; originally announced October 2016.

Comments: Technical report for https://github.com/tensorflow/cleverhans

Detection under Privileged Information

Authors: Z. Berkay Celik, Patrick McDaniel, Rauf Izmailov, Nicolas Papernot, Ryan Sheatsley, Raquel Alvarez, Ananthram Swami

Abstract: For well over a quarter century, detection systems have been driven by models learned from input features collected from real or simulated environments. An artifact (e.g., network event, potential malware sample, suspicious email) is deemed malicious or non-malicious based on its similarity to the learned model at runtime. However, the training of the models has been historically limited to only t… ▽ More For well over a quarter century, detection systems have been driven by models learned from input features collected from real or simulated environments. An artifact (e.g., network event, potential malware sample, suspicious email) is deemed malicious or non-malicious based on its similarity to the learned model at runtime. However, the training of the models has been historically limited to only those features available at runtime. In this paper, we consider an alternate learning approach that trains models using "privileged" information--features available at training time but not at runtime--to improve the accuracy and resilience of detection systems. In particular, we adapt and extend recent advances in knowledge transfer, model influence, and distillation to enable the use of forensic or other data unavailable at runtime in a range of security domains. An empirical evaluation shows that privileged information increases precision and recall over a system with no privileged information: we observe up to 7.7% relative decrease in detection error for fast-flux bot detection, 8.6% for malware traffic detection, 7.3% for malware classification, and 16.9% for face recognition. We explore the limitations and applications of different privileged information techniques in detection systems. Such techniques provide a new means for detection systems to learn from data that would otherwise not be available at runtime. △ Less

Submitted 30 March, 2018; v1 submitted 31 March, 2016; originally announced March 2016.

Comments: A short version of this paper is accepted to ASIACCS 2018

The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Somesh Jha, Matt Fredrikson, Z. Berkay Celik, Ananthram Swami

Abstract: Deep learning takes advantage of large datasets and computationally efficient training algorithms to outperform other approaches at various machine learning tasks. However, imperfections in the training phase of deep neural networks make them vulnerable to adversarial samples: inputs crafted by adversaries with the intent of causing deep neural networks to misclassify. In this work, we formalize t… ▽ More Deep learning takes advantage of large datasets and computationally efficient training algorithms to outperform other approaches at various machine learning tasks. However, imperfections in the training phase of deep neural networks make them vulnerable to adversarial samples: inputs crafted by adversaries with the intent of causing deep neural networks to misclassify. In this work, we formalize the space of adversaries against deep neural networks (DNNs) and introduce a novel class of algorithms to craft adversarial samples based on a precise understanding of the mapping between inputs and outputs of DNNs. In an application to computer vision, we show that our algorithms can reliably produce samples correctly classified by human subjects but misclassified in specific targets by a DNN with a 97% adversarial success rate while only modifying on average 4.02% of the input features per sample. We then evaluate the vulnerability of different sample classes to adversarial perturbations by defining a hardness measure. Finally, we describe preliminary work outlining defenses against adversarial samples by defining a predictive measure of distance between a benign input and a target classification. △ Less

Submitted 23 November, 2015; originally announced November 2015.

Comments: Accepted to the 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security & Privacy, IEEE 2016. Saarbrucken, Germany

Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks

Authors: Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Xi Wu, Somesh Jha, Ananthram Swami

Abstract: Deep learning algorithms have been shown to perform extremely well on many classical machine learning problems. However, recent studies have shown that deep learning, like other machine learning techniques, is vulnerable to adversarial samples: inputs crafted to force a deep neural network (DNN) to provide adversary-selected outputs. Such attacks can seriously undermine the security of the system… ▽ More Deep learning algorithms have been shown to perform extremely well on many classical machine learning problems. However, recent studies have shown that deep learning, like other machine learning techniques, is vulnerable to adversarial samples: inputs crafted to force a deep neural network (DNN) to provide adversary-selected outputs. Such attacks can seriously undermine the security of the system supported by the DNN, sometimes with devastating consequences. For example, autonomous vehicles can be crashed, illicit or illegal content can bypass content filters, or biometric authentication systems can be manipulated to allow improper access. In this work, we introduce a defensive mechanism called defensive distillation to reduce the effectiveness of adversarial samples on DNNs. We analytically investigate the generalizability and robustness properties granted by the use of defensive distillation when training DNNs. We also empirically study the effectiveness of our defense mechanisms on two DNNs placed in adversarial settings. The study shows that defensive distillation can reduce effectiveness of sample creation from 95% to less than 0.5% on a studied DNN. Such dramatic gains can be explained by the fact that distillation leads gradients used in adversarial sample creation to be reduced by a factor of 10^30. We also find that distillation increases the average minimum number of features that need to be modified to create adversarial samples by about 800% on one of the DNNs we tested. △ Less

Submitted 14 March, 2016; v1 submitted 13 November, 2015; originally announced November 2015.