Conflicting Interactions Among Protection Mechanisms for Machine Learning Models
July 05, 2022 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Sebastian Szyller, N. Asokan
arXiv ID
2207.01991
Category
cs.LG: Machine Learning
Cross-listed
cs.CR
Citations
13
Venue
AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Nowadays, systems based on machine learning (ML) are widely used in different domains. Given their popularity, ML models have become targets for various attacks. As a result, research at the intersection of security/privacy and ML has flourished. Typically such work has focused on individual types of security/privacy concerns and mitigations thereof. However, in real-life deployments, an ML model will need to be protected against several concerns simultaneously. A protection mechanism optimal for one security or privacy concern may interact negatively with mechanisms intended to address other concerns. Despite its practical relevance, the potential for such conflicts has not been studied adequately. We first provide a framework for analyzing such "conflicting interactions". We then focus on systematically analyzing pairwise interactions between protection mechanisms for one concern, model and data ownership verification, with two other classes of ML protection mechanisms: differentially private training, and robustness against model evasion. We find that several pairwise interactions result in conflicts. We explore potential approaches for avoiding such conflicts. First, we study the effect of hyperparameter relaxations, finding that there is no sweet spot balancing the performance of both protection mechanisms. Second, we explore if modifying one type of protection mechanism (ownership verification) so as to decouple it from factors that may be impacted by a conflicting mechanism (differentially private training or robustness to model evasion) can avoid conflict. We show that this approach can avoid the conflict between ownership verification mechanisms when combined with differentially private training, but has no effect on robustness to model evasion. Finally, we identify the gaps in the landscape of studying interactions between other types of ML protection mechanisms.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Machine Learning
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning
๐
๐
Old Age
Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networks
๐
๐
Old Age
Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actor
๐
๐
Old Age
SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restarts
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted