Cited by 143Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataDigital Media Forensic Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practical

Open access

Abstract

Deep learning models are often trained on distributed, web-scale datasets crawled from the internet. In this paper, we introduce two new dataset poisoning attacks that intentionally introduce malicious examples to a model’s performance. Our attacks are immediately practical and could, today, poison 10 popular datasets. Our first attack, split-view poisoning, exploits the mutable nature of internet content to ensure a dataset annotator’s initial view of the dataset differs from the view downloaded by subsequent clients. By exploiting specific invalid trust assumptions, we show how we could have poisoned 0.01% of the LAION-400M or COYO-700M datasets for just $60 USD. Our second attack, frontrunning poisoning, targets web-scale datasets that periodically snapshot crowd-sourced content—such as Wikipedia—where an attacker only needs a time-limited window to inject malicious examples. In light of both attacks, we notify the maintainers of each affected dataset and recommended several low-overhead defenses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/sp54263.2024.00179

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.18653/v1/n19–1423 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Guo, Wiki-40B: Multilingual language model dataset, 2440
  3. Radford, 2019, Language models are unsupervised multitask learners, OpenAI blog, 1, 9

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 143

Metadata

Authors
Carlini, N., Jagielski, M., Choquette-Choo, C. A., Paleka, D., Pearce, W., Anderson, H., Terzis, A., Thomas, K., & Tramèr, F.
Affiliations
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Nvidia (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Robust Intelligence
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2024-05-19
Pages
407-425
ISSN
1081-6011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402264526
Cited by
138
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 29
FWCI
37.18
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
deep learning security, Wikipedia, crowdsourced data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review