The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Segmentations-Leak: Membership Inference Attacks and Defenses in Semantic Image Segmentation
Open accessAbstract
Today's success of state of the art methods for semantic segmentation is driven by large datasets. Data is considered an important asset that needs to be protected, as the collection and annotation of such datasets comes at significant efforts and associated costs. In addition, visual data might contain private or sensitive information, that makes it equally unsuited for public release. Unfortunately, recent work on membership inference in the broader area of adversarial machine learning and inference attacks on machine learning models has shown that even black box classifiers leak information on the dataset that they were trained on. We show that such membership inference attacks can be successfully carried out on complex, state of the art models for semantic segmentation. In order to mitigate the associated risks, we also study a series of defenses against such membership inference attacks and find effective counter measures against the existing risks with little effect on the utility of the segmentation method. Finally, we extensively evaluate our attacks and defenses on a range of relevant real-world datasets: Cityscapes, BDD100K, and Mapillary Vistas.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Membership inference is the most well-established privacy attack and arguably constitutes a bigger privacy threat than class-level attacks, such as the attacks in [7, 59] and model inversion [18, 19].
“We emphasize that membership inference is the most wellestablished privacy attack and arguably constitutes a bigger privacy threat [13,28,30,37,46,48,60,66,67,75] than classlevel attacks, such as the attacks in [7, 59] and model inversion [18, 19].”
From When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding
Xiao, T., Liu, Y., Zhou, B., Jiang, Y., & Sun, J. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01228-1_26 · Cited by 2,201
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy
Chen, M., Zhang, Z., Wang, T., Backes, M., Humbert, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3460120.3484756 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- He, Y., Rahimian, S., Schiele, B., & Fritz, M.
- Affiliations
- Helmholtz Center for Information Security (DE)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1912.09685
- OpenAlex
- W2995395373
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (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 › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- membership inference attacks, semantic segmentation, privacy leakage, adversarial learning, black-box attacks, sensitive data protection, privacy-preserving machine learning
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