skip to main content

Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Le, Wei"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Given the availability of abundant data, deep learning models have been advanced and become ubiquitous in the past decade. In practice, due to many different reasons (e.g., privacy, usability, and fidelity), individuals also want the trained deep models to forget some specific data. Motivated by this, machine unlearning (also known as selective data forgetting) has been intensively studied, which aims at removing the influence that any particular training sample had on the trained model during the unlearning process. However, people usually employ machine unlearning methods as trusted basic tools and rarely have any doubt about their reliability. In fact, the increasingly critical role of machine unlearning makes deep learning models susceptible to the risk of being maliciously attacked. To well understand the performance of deep learning models in malicious environments, we believe that it is critical to study the robustness of deep learning models to malicious unlearning attacks, which happen during the unlearning process. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we first demonstrate that malicious unlearning attacks pose immense threats to the security of deep learning systems. Specifically, we present a broad class of malicious unlearning attacks wherein maliciously crafted unlearning requests trigger deep learning models to misbehave on target samples in a highly controllable and predictable manner. In addition, to improve the robustness of deep learning models, we also present a general defense mechanism, which aims to identify and unlearn effective malicious unlearning requests based on their gradient influence on the unlearned models. Further, theoretical analyses are conducted to analyze the proposed methods. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets validate the vulnerabilities of deep learning models to malicious unlearning attacks and the effectiveness of the introduced defense mechanism. 
    more » « less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available August 4, 2024
  2. null (Ed.)
  3. null (Ed.)
    Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are becoming an integral part of most software systems. Previous work has shown that DNNs have bugs. Unfortunately, existing debugging techniques don't support localizing DNN bugs because of the lack of understanding of model behaviors. The entire DNN model appears as a black box. To address these problems, we propose an approach and a tool that automatically determines whether the model is buggy or not, and identifies the root causes for DNN errors. Our key insight is that historic trends in values propagated between layers can be analyzed to identify faults, and also localize faults. To that end, we first enable dynamic analysis of deep learning applications: by converting it into an imperative representation and alternatively using a callback mechanism. Both mechanisms allows us to insert probes that enable dynamic analysis over the traces produced by the DNN while it is being trained on the training data. We then conduct dynamic analysis over the traces to identify the faulty layer or hyperparameter that causes the error. We propose an algorithm for identifying root causes by capturing any numerical error and monitoring the model during training and finding the relevance of every layer/parameter on the DNN outcome. We have collected a benchmark containing 40 buggy models and patches that contain real errors in deep learning applications from Stack Overflow and GitHub. Our benchmark can be used to evaluate automated debugging tools and repair techniques. We have evaluated our approach using this DNN bug-and-patch benchmark, and the results showed that our approach is much more effective than the existing debugging approach used in the state-of-the-practice Keras library. For 34/40 cases, our approach was able to detect faults whereas the best debugging approach provided by Keras detected 32/40 faults. Our approach was able to localize 21/40 bugs whereas Keras did not localize any faults. 
    more » « less