On the Effectiveness of Dataset Watermarking in Adversarial Settings
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In a data-driven world, datasets constitute a significant economic value. Dataset owners who spend time and money to collect and curate the data are incentivized to ensure that their datasets are not used in ways that they did not authorize. When such misuse occurs, dataset owners need technical mechanisms for demonstrating their ownership of the dataset in question. Dataset watermarking provides one approach for ownership demonstration which can, in turn, deter unauthorized use. In this paper, we investigate a recently proposed data provenance method, radioactive data, to assess if it can be used to demonstrate ownership of (image) datasets used to train machine learning (ML) models. The original paper reported that radioactive data is effective in white-box settings. We show that while this is true for large datasets with many classes, it is not as effective for datasets where the number of classes is low (≤ 30) or the number of samples per class is low (≤ 500). We also show that, counter-intuitively, the black-box verification technique is effective for all datasets used in this paper, even when white-box verification is not. Given this observation, we show that the confidence in white-box verification can be improved by using watermarked samples directly during the verification process. We also highlight the need to assess the robustness of radioactive data if it were to be used for ownership demonstration since it is an adversarial setting unlike provenance identification. Compared to dataset watermarking, ML model watermarking has been explored more extensively in recent literature. However, most of the model watermarking techniques can be defeated via model extraction. We show that radioactive data can effectively survive model extraction attacks, which raises the possibility that it can be used for ML model ownership verification robust against model extraction.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2022.
Builds on
22 of 42 references.
References · 22
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2015Image-based Recommendations on Styles and Substitutescited by 702
- 2016Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIscited by 602
- 2018Fine-Pruning: Defending Against Backdooring Attacks on Deep Neural Networkscited by 550
- 2018Turning Your Weakness Into a Strength: Watermarking Deep Neural Networks by Backdooringcited by 334
- 2018Knockoff Nets: Stealing Functionality of Black-Box Modelscited by 285
- 2017Embedding Watermarks into Deep Neural Networkscited by 227
- 2020Entangled Watermarks as a Defense against Model Extractioncited by 144
- 2021Dataset Inference: Ownership Resolution in Machine Learningcited by 115
- 2019DAWN: Dynamic Adversarial Watermarking of Neural Networkscited by 94
10 more
- 2019Deep Neural Network Fingerprinting by Conferrable Adversarial Examplescited by 90
- 2019Prediction Poisoning: Towards Defenses Against DNN Model Stealing Attackscited by 79
- 2018Copycat CNN: Stealing Knowledge by Persuading Confession with Random Non-Labeled Datacited by 69
- 2020Radioactive data: tracing through trainingcited by 67
- 2019How to Prove Your Model Belongs to You: A Blind-Watermark based Framework to Protect Intellectual Property of DNNcited by 58
- 2019REFIT: A Unified Watermark Removal Framework For Deep Learning Systems With Limited Datacited by 40
- 2020Open-sourced Dataset Protection via Backdoor Watermarkingcited by 30
- 2019BlackMarks: Blackbox Multibit Watermarking for Deep Neural Networkscited by 25
- 2020Neural Network Laundering: Removing Black-Box Backdoor Watermarks from Deep Neural Networkscited by 24
- 2019Extraction of Complex DNN Models: Real Threat or Boogeyman?cited by 19
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
11 papers.
- 2023CodeMark: Imperceptible Watermarking for Code Datasets against Neural Code Completion Modelscited by 28
- 2024SoK: Dataset Copyright Auditing in Machine Learning Systemscited by 14
- 2022Conflicting Interactions Among Protection Mechanisms for Machine Learning Modelscited by 12
- 2022Data Isotopes for Data Provenance in DNNscited by 11
- 2025DATABench: Evaluating Dataset Auditing in Deep Learning from an Adversarial Perspectivecited by 8
- 2023SoK: Unintended Interactions among Machine Learning Defenses and Riskscited by 6
- 2024Proactive Schemes: A Survey of Adversarial Attacks for Social Goodcited by 2
- 2024Combining Machine Learning Defenses without Conflictscited by 2
- 2026From Reflection to Repair: A Scoping Review of Dataset Documentation Toolscited by 1
- 2023Mendata: A Framework to Purify Manipulated Training Datacited by 0
- 2026DIPBox: A Multi-scale Testing Framework for Tracking Dataset Regenerationcited by 0
- 2026DIPBox: A Multi-scale Testing Framework for Tracking Dataset Regeneration19 Jun 2026
- 2026From Reflection to Repair: A Scoping Review of Dataset Documentation Tools17 Feb 2026
- 2025DATABench: Evaluating Dataset Auditing in Deep Learning from an Adversarial Perspective8 Jul 2025
- 2024Combining Machine Learning Defenses without Conflicts14 Nov 2024
- 2024SoK: Dataset Copyright Auditing in Machine Learning Systems22 Oct 2024
- 2024Proactive Schemes: A Survey of Adversarial Attacks for Social Good24 Sep 2024
- 2023SoK: Unintended Interactions among Machine Learning Defenses and Risks7 Dec 2023
- 2023Mendata: A Framework to Purify Manipulated Training Data3 Dec 2023
- 2023CodeMark: Imperceptible Watermarking for Code Datasets against Neural Code Completion Models28 Aug 2023
- 2022Data Isotopes for Data Provenance in DNNs29 Aug 2022
- 2022Conflicting Interactions Among Protection Mechanisms for Machine Learning Models5 Jul 2022