Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Chusong Zhang
dblp:391/3430
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 1 · 1 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 · 62% Digital forensics and information hiding · 38% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Security and privacy of machine learning › training data protection
dataset copyright auditing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | SoK: Dataset Copyright Auditing in Machine Learning Systems · SP 2025 |
Digital forensics and information hiding
watermarking |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | SoK: Dataset Copyright Auditing in Machine Learning Systems · SP 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
model intellectual property protection |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | SoK: Dataset Copyright Auditing in Machine Learning Systems · SP 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › model intellectual property protection
model watermarking |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | SoK: Dataset Copyright Auditing in Machine Learning Systems · SP 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
watermark injection · 0.9membership inference · 0.9fingerprinting · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | SoK: Dataset Copyright Auditing in Machine Learning SystemsabstractAs the implementation of machine learning (ML) systems becomes more widespread, especially with the introduction of larger ML models, we perceive a spring demand for massive data. However, it inevitably causes infringement and misuse problems with the data, such as using unauthorized online artworks or face images to train ML models. To address this problem, many efforts have been made to audit the copyright of the model training dataset. However, existing solutions vary in auditing assumptions and capabilities, making it difficult to compare their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, robustness evaluations usually consider only part of the ML pipeline and hardly reflect the performance of algorithms in real-world ML applications. Thus, it is essential to take a practical deployment perspective on the current dataset copyright auditing tools, examining their effectiveness and limitations. Concretely, we categorize dataset copyright auditing research into two prominent strands: intrusive methods and non-intrusive methods, depending on whether they require modifications to the original dataset. Then, we break down the intrusive methods into different watermark injection options and examine the non-intrusive methods using various finger-prints. To summarize our results, we offer detailed reference tables, highlight key points, and pinpoint unresolved issues in the current literature. By combining the pipeline in ML systems and analyzing previous studies, we highlight several future directions to make auditing tools more suitable for real-world copyright protection requirements. Linkang Du, Xuanru Zhou, Min Chen 0032, Chusong Zhang, Zhou Su 0001, Peng Cheng 0001, Jiming Chen 0001, Zhikun Zhang 0001 |
SP | 4 |