Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

John Abascal

dblp:327/6539 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 2 · 1 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.

Network and information security
1 paper
Security and privacy of machine learning · 67% Privacy and data protection · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Security and privacy of machine learning
poisoning attack
0.712023
SNAP: Efficient Extraction of Private Properties with Poisoning · SP 2023
Security and privacy of machine learning › privacy attack
property inference attack
0.712023
SNAP: Efficient Extraction of Private Properties with Poisoning · SP 2023
Privacy and data protection › privacy-preserving machine learning
training data privacy
0.712023
SNAP: Efficient Extraction of Private Properties with Poisoning · SP 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

shadow model · 0.7poisoning · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 TMI! Finetuned Models Leak Private Information from their Pretraining Data
abstract
Transfer learning has become an increasingly popular technique in machine learning as a way to leverage a pretrained model trained for one task to assist with building a finetuned model for a related task. This paradigm has been especially popular for privacy in machine learning, where the pretrained model is considered public, and only the data for finetuning is considered sensitive. However, there are reasons to believe that the data used for pretraining is still sensitive, making it essential to understand how much information the finetuned model leaks about the pretraining data. In this work we propose a new membership-inference threat model where the adversary only has access to the finetuned model and would like to infer the membership of the pretraining data. To realize this threat model, we implement a novel metaclassifier-based attack, TMI, that leverages the influence of memorized pretraining samples on predictions in the downstream task. We evaluate TMI on both vision and natural language tasks across multiple transfer learning settings, including finetuning with differential privacy. Through our evaluation, we find that TMI can successfully infer membership of pretraining examples using query access to the finetuned model.
John Abascal, Stanley Wu, Alina Oprea, Jonathan R. Ullman
Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol.1
2023 SNAP: Efficient Extraction of Private Properties with Poisoning
abstract
Property inference attacks allow an adversary to extract global properties of the training dataset from a machine learning model. Such attacks have privacy implications for data owners sharing their datasets to train machine learning models. Several existing approaches for property inference attacks against deep neural networks have been proposed [1] –[3], but they all rely on the attacker training a large number of shadow models, which induces a large computational overhead.In this paper, we consider the setting of property inference attacks in which the attacker can poison a subset of the training dataset and query the trained target model. Motivated by our theoretical analysis of model confidences under poisoning, we design an efficient property inference attack, SNAP, which obtains higher attack success and requires lower amounts of poisoning than the state-of-the-art poisoning-based property inference attack by Mahloujifar et al. [3]. For example, on the Census dataset, SNAP achieves 34% higher success rate than [3] while being 56.5× faster. We also extend our attack to infer whether a certain property was present at all during training and estimate the exact proportion of a property of interest efficiently. We evaluate our attack on several properties of varying proportions from four datasets and demonstrate SNAP’s generality and effectiveness.
Harsh Chaudhari, John Abascal, Alina Oprea, Matthew Jagielski, Florian Tramèr, Jonathan R. Ullman
SP2