Protecting against simultaneous data poisoning attacks

Neel Alex, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Amartya Sanyal, David Krueger
8/23/2024
cs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Current backdoor defense methods are evaluated against a single attack at a time. This is unrealistic, as powerful machine learning systems are trained on large datasets scraped from the internet, which may be attacked multiple times by one or more attackers. We demonstrate that simultaneously executed data poisoning attacks can effectively install multiple backdoors in a single model without substantially degrading clean accuracy. Furthermore, we show that existing backdoor defense methods do not effectively prevent attacks in this setting. Finally, we leverage insights into the nature of backdoor attacks to develop a new defense, BaDLoss, that is effective in the multi-attack setting. With minimal clean accuracy degradation, BaDLoss attains an average attack success rate in the multi-attack setting of 7.98% in CIFAR-10 and 10.29% in GTSRB, compared to the average of other defenses at 64.48% and 84.28% respectively.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{alex2024protecting,
  title  = {Protecting against simultaneous data poisoning attacks},
  author = {Neel Alex and Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui and Amartya Sanyal and David Krueger},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2408.13221},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13221v1},
  journal = {ICLR 2024 2024}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2408.13221.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2408.13221)

Discussion