Jianbin Li

Ting Qiao, Yiming Li, Jianbin Li et al.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) rely heavily on high-quality open-source datasets (e.g., ImageNet) for their success, making dataset ownership verification (DOV) crucial for protecting public dataset copyrights. In this paper, we find existing DOV methods (implicitly) assume that the verification process is faithful, where the suspicious model will directly verify ownership by using the verification samples as input and returning their results. However, this assumption may not necessarily hold in practice and their performance may degrade sharply when subjected to intentional or unintentional perturbations. To address this limitation, we propose the first certified dataset watermark (i.e., CertDW) and CertDW-based certified dataset ownership verification method that ensures reliable verification even under malicious attacks, under certain conditions (e.g., constrained pixel-level perturbation). Specifically, inspired by conformal prediction, we introduce two statistical measures, including principal probability (PP) and watermark robustness (WR), to assess model prediction stability on benign and watermarked samples under noise perturbations. We prove there exists a provable lower bound between PP and WR, enabling ownership verification when a suspicious model's WR value significantly exceeds the PP values of multiple benign models trained on watermark-free datasets. If the number of PP values smaller than WR exceeds a threshold, the suspicious model is regarded as having been trained on the protected dataset. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets verify the effectiveness of our CertDW method and its resistance to potential adaptive attacks. Our codes are at \href{https://github.com/NcepuQiaoTing/CertDW}{GitHub}.

Quyet V. Do, Junze Li, Tung-Duong Vuong et al.

Commonsense datasets have been well developed in Natural Language Processing, mainly through crowdsource human annotation. However, there are debates on the genuineness of commonsense reasoning benchmarks. In specific, a significant portion of instances in some commonsense benchmarks do not concern commonsense knowledge. That problem would undermine the measurement of the true commonsense reasoning ability of evaluated models. It is also suggested that the problem originated from a blurry concept of commonsense knowledge, as distinguished from other types of knowledge. To demystify all of the above claims, in this study, we survey existing definitions of commonsense knowledge, ground into the three frameworks for defining concepts, and consolidate them into a multi-framework unified definition of commonsense knowledge (so-called consolidated definition). We then use the consolidated definition for annotations and experiments on the CommonsenseQA and CommonsenseQA 2.0 datasets to examine the above claims. Our study shows that there exists a large portion of non-commonsense-knowledge instances in the two datasets, and a large performance gap on these two subsets where Large Language Models (LLMs) perform worse on commonsense-knowledge instances.