Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Knowledge-Enriched Distributional Model Inversion Attacks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2010.04092 v4 pith:5W5O5T74 submitted 2020-10-08 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords attacksmodeldatatargetbetterclassinversionmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Model inversion (MI) attacks are aimed at reconstructing training data from model parameters. Such attacks have triggered increasing concerns about privacy, especially given a growing number of online model repositories. However, existing MI attacks against deep neural networks (DNNs) have large room for performance improvement. We present a novel inversion-specific GAN that can better distill knowledge useful for performing attacks on private models from public data. In particular, we train the discriminator to differentiate not only the real and fake samples but the soft-labels provided by the target model. Moreover, unlike previous work that directly searches for a single data point to represent a target class, we propose to model a private data distribution for each target class. Our experiments show that the combination of these techniques can significantly boost the success rate of the state-of-the-art MI attacks by 150%, and generalize better to a variety of datasets and models. Our code is available at https://github.com/SCccc21/Knowledge-Enriched-DMI.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Do male leading authors retract more articles than female leading authors?

    cs.DL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Male first authors have higher retraction rates than female first authors after accounting for publication volume, and the gap is concentrated in misconduct categories rather than honest mistakes.

Pith tools