Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aniruddha Saha
dblp:221/8102
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
2as first author
5since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · conflict
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 2 first-author · 4 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 4 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
6 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 43% Language models and text generation · 36% Image recognition and object detection · 12% | |
| Network and information security
4 papers |
Security and privacy of machine learning · 57% Digital forensics and information hiding · 43% |
Topics — the 15 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
1.0 | 3 | 2022 | Universal Litmus Patterns: Revealing Backdoor Attacks in CNNs · CVPR 2020 Hidden Trigger Backdoor Attacks · AAAI 2020 Backdoor Attacks on Self-Supervised Learning · CVPR 2022 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › adversarial attack
backdoor attack |
1.0 | 2 | 2022 | Backdoor Attacks on Self-Supervised Learning · CVPR 2022 Hidden Trigger Backdoor Attacks · AAAI 2020 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
instruction tuning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | NEFTune: Noisy Embeddings Improve Instruction Finetuning · ICLR 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
machine-generated text detection |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text · ICML 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
watermarking |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection › object detection › open-vocabulary object detection
zero-shot object detection |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text · ICML 2024 |
Digital forensics and information hiding › watermarking
robust watermarking |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Digital forensics and information hiding
watermarking |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Models · ICLR 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › neural network security
backdoor vulnerability |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Backdoor Attacks on Self-Supervised Learning · CVPR 2022 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
contrastive learning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Backdoor Attacks on Self-Supervised Learning · CVPR 2022 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › adversarial attack › backdoor attack
self-supervised learning backdoor |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Backdoor Attacks on Self-Supervised Learning · CVPR 2022 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial attack |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Hidden Trigger Backdoor Attacks · AAAI 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › backdoor defense
backdoor detection |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Universal Litmus Patterns: Revealing Backdoor Attacks in CNNs · CVPR 2020 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › adversarial attack › backdoor attack › backdoor defense
backdoor detection |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Universal Litmus Patterns: Revealing Backdoor Attacks in CNNs · CVPR 2020 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text · ICML 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
data poisoning · 2.0statistical detection · 1.5paraphrase attack · 1.5knowledge distillation · 1.1trigger pattern · 0.9forward-pass analysis · 0.9pre-trained language model · 0.8instruction fine-tuning · 0.8embedding noise · 0.8contrastive language model scoring · 0.8universal litmus patterns · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | NEFTune: Noisy Embeddings Improve Instruction FinetuningabstractWe show that language model finetuning can be improved, sometimes dramatically, with a simple augmentation.
NEFTune adds noise to the embedding vectors during training.
Standard finetuning of LLaMA-2-7B using Alpaca achieves $29.79$\% on AlpacaEval, which rises to $64.69$\% using noisy embeddings. NEFTune also improves over strong baselines on modern instruction datasets.
Models trained with Evol-Instruct see a $10$\% improvement, with ShareGPT an $8$\% improvement, and with OpenPlatypus an $8$\% improvement.
Even powerful models further refined with RLHF such as LLaMA-2-Chat benefit from additional training with NEFTune. Particularly, we see these improvements on the conversational abilities of the instruction model and not on traditional tasks like those on the OpenLLM Leaderboard, where performance is the same. Neel Jain, Ping-Yeh Chiang, Yuxin Wen, John Kirchenbauer, Hong-Min Chu, Gowthami Somepalli, Brian R. Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Avi Schwarzschild, Aniruddha Saha, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, Tom Goldstein |
ICLR | 10 |
| 2024 | On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language ModelsabstractAs LLMs become commonplace, machine-generated text has the potential to flood the internet with spam, social media bots, and valueless content. _Watermarking_ is a simple and effective strategy for mitigating such harms by enabling the detection and documentation of LLM-generated text. Yet a crucial question remains: How reliable is watermarking in realistic settings in the wild? There, watermarked text may be modified to suit a user's needs, or entirely rewritten to avoid detection. We study the robustness of watermarked text after it is re-written by humans, paraphrased by a non-watermarked LLM, or mixed into a longer hand-written document. We find that watermarks remain detectable even after human and machine paraphrasing. While these attacks dilute the strength of the watermark, paraphrases are statistically likely to leak n-grams or even longer fragments of the original text, resulting in high-confidence detections when enough tokens are observed. For example, after strong human paraphrasing the watermark is detectable after observing 800 tokens on average, when setting a $1\mathrm{e}{-5}$ false positive rate. We also consider a range of new detection schemes that are sensitive to short spans of watermarked text embedded inside a large document, and we compare the robustness of watermarking to other kinds of detectors. John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Manli Shu, Khalid Saifullah, Kezhi Kong, Kasun Fernando, Aniruddha Saha, Micah Goldblum, Tom Goldstein |
ICLR | 8 |
| 2024 | Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated TextabstractDetecting text generated by modern large language models is thought to be hard, as both LLMs and humans can exhibit a wide range of complex behaviors. However, we find that a score based on contrasting two closely related language models is highly accurate at separating human-generated and machine-generated text. Based on this mechanism, we propose a novel LLM detector that only requires simple calculations using a pair of pre-trained LLMs. The method, called *Binoculars*, achieves state-of-the-art accuracy without any training data. It is capable of spotting machine text from a range of modern LLMs without any model-specific modifications. We comprehensively evaluate *Binoculars* on a number of text sources and in varied situations. Over a wide range of document types, *Binoculars* detects over 90% of generated samples from ChatGPT (and other LLMs) at a false positive rate of 0.01%, despite not being trained on any ChatGPT data. Code available at https://github.com/ahans30/Binoculars. Abhimanyu Hans, Avi Schwarzschild, Valeriia Cherepanova, Hamid Kazemi, Aniruddha Saha, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, Tom Goldstein |
ICML | 5 |
| 2024 | A Closer Look at Robustness of Vision Transformers to Backdoor AttacksabstractTransformer architectures are based on self-attention mechanism that processes images as a sequence of patches. As their design is quite different compared to CNNs, it is important to take a closer look at their vulnerability to back-door attacks and how different transformer architectures affect robustness. Backdoor attacks happen when an attacker poisons a small part of the training images with a specific trigger or backdoor which will be activated later. The model performance is good on clean test images, but the attacker can manipulate the decision of the model by showing the trigger on an image at test time. In this paper, we compare state-of-the-art architectures through the lens of backdoor attacks, specifically how attention mechanisms affect robustness. We observe that the well known vision transformer architecture (ViT) is the least robust architecture and ResMLP, which belongs to a class called Feed Forward Networks (FFN), is most robust to backdoor attacks among state-of-the-art architectures. We also find an intriguing difference between transformers and CNNs - interpretation algorithms effectively highlight the trigger on test images for transformers but not for CNNs. Based on this observation, we find that a test-time image blocking defense reduces the attack success rate by a large margin for transformers. We also show that such blocking mechanisms can be incorporated during the training process to improve robustness even further. We believe our experimental findings will encourage the community to understand the building block components in developing novel architectures robust to back-door attacks. Code is available here: https://github.com/UCDvision/backdoor_transformer.git Akshayvarun Subramanya, Soroush Abbasi Koohpayegani, Aniruddha Saha, Ajinkya Tejankar, Hamed Pirsiavash |
WACV | 3 |
| 2022 | Backdoor Attacks on Self-Supervised LearningabstractLarge-scale unlabeled data has spurred recent progress in self-supervised learning methods that learn rich vi-sual representations. State-of-the-art self-supervised methods for learning representations from images (e.g., MoCo, BYOL, MSF) use an inductive bias that random augmentations (e.g., random crops) of an image should produce similar embeddings. We show that such methods are vulnerable to backdoor attacks - where an attacker poisons a small part of the unlabeled data by adding a trigger (image patch chosen by the attacker) to the images. The model performance is good on clean test images, but the attacker can manipulate the decision of the model by showing the trigger at test time. Backdoor attacks have been studied extensively in supervised learning and to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study them for self-supervised learning. Backdoor attacks are more practical in self-supervised learning, since the use of large unlabeled data makes data inspection to remove poisons prohibitive. We show that in our targeted attack, the attacker can produce many false positives for the target category by using the trigger at test time. We also propose a defense method based on knowledge distillation that succeeds in neutralizing the attack. Our code is available here: https://github.com/UMBCvisionISSL-Backdoor Aniruddha Saha, Ajinkya Tejankar, Soroush Abbasi Koohpayegani, Hamed Pirsiavash |
CVPR | 1 |
| 2020 | Hidden Trigger Backdoor AttacksabstractWith the success of deep learning algorithms in various domains, studying adversarial attacks to secure deep models in real world applications has become an important research topic. Backdoor attacks are a form of adversarial attacks on deep networks where the attacker provides poisoned data to the victim to train the model with, and then activates the attack by showing a specific small trigger pattern at the test time. Most state-of-the-art backdoor attacks either provide mislabeled poisoning data that is possible to identify by visual inspection, reveal the trigger in the poisoned data, or use noise to hide the trigger. We propose a novel form of backdoor attack where poisoned data look natural with correct labels and also more importantly, the attacker hides the trigger in the poisoned data and keeps the trigger secret until the test time. We perform an extensive study on various image classification settings and show that our attack can fool the model by pasting the trigger at random locations on unseen images although the model performs well on clean data. We also show that our proposed attack cannot be easily defended using a state-of-the-art defense algorithm for backdoor attacks. Aniruddha Saha, Akshayvarun Subramanya, Hamed Pirsiavash |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2020 | Universal Litmus Patterns: Revealing Backdoor Attacks in CNNsabstractThe unprecedented success of deep neural networks in many applications has made these networks a prime target for adversarial exploitation. In this paper, we introduce a benchmark technique for detecting backdoor attacks (aka Trojan attacks) on deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs). We introduce the concept of Universal Litmus Patterns (ULPs), which enable one to reveal backdoor attacks by feeding these universal patterns to the network and analyzing the output (i.e., classifying the network as `clean' or `corrupted'). This detection is fast because it requires only a few forward passes through a CNN. We demonstrate the effectiveness of ULPs for detecting backdoor attacks on thousands of networks with different architectures trained on four benchmark datasets, namely the German Traffic Sign Recognition Benchmark (GTSRB), MNIST, CIFAR10, and Tiny-ImageNet. The codes and train/test models for this paper can be found here: https://umbcvision.github.io/Universal-Litmus-Patterns/. Soheil Kolouri, Aniruddha Saha, Hamed Pirsiavash, Heiko Hoffmann |
CVPR | 2 |