Security & Privacy of Machine Learning
Introduction
This is the course space for the Aalto University Department of Computer Science Research seminar on security and privacy of machine learning (CS-E4001). The course is worth 5 credits, which are earned
by reading, analyzing, presenting and discussing research papers on the topic of security and privacy of machine learning systems. There is no exam.
Course staff: Samuel Marchal (teacher - samuel.marchal@aalto.fi), Sebastian Szyller (teaching assistant - sebastian.szyller@aalto.fi).
Registration
Students must register for
the course through Oodi. We expect 15-20 participants for this course
Pre-requisites
Commitment
Course Overview
Learning Objectives
After this course, you are expected to have the following new skills:
- knowledge of the security and privacy threats to machine learning systems
- ability to identify the threats to a given machine learning system (threat modelling)
- ability to summarize and critically analyze findings/contributions from research papers
- ability to make a sensible oral presentation of a research paper and to lead a critical discussion about it
- new insights on good research methodology and on scientific writing (useful for MSc. thesis)
Content
The course consists in several group discussion sessions (10 sessions planned). Two scientific papers on the topic of security and privacy of machine learning are presented and discussed during each session. These papers cover both attacks on machine learning systems and defenses to some of these attacks. One student presents and leads the discussion for each paper. The remaining of the students participate in the discussions.
Each paper discussion will typically consist in the presentation of the paper (20 minutes) and an interactive discussion led by the presenter (30 minutes).
Assessment and grading
Students are assessed and graded according to 3 components:
- Presenting and leading the discussion on a scientific paper (twice per student): 50% of the grade
- Participation in discussions: 25% of the grade
- Writing a learning diary to reflect on paper reading and discussion sessions: 25% of the grade
Workload: 134 hours
- reading scientific papers (2 papers per week) - 25 papers x 3h = 75h
- come and participate to discussion sessions (once a week) - 12 sessions x 2h = 24h
- prepare the presentation and the discussion for 1 paper (twice over the course): 2 preparations x 10h = 20h
- write a learning diary (0.5-1 page to fill once a week, after each session) - 10 sessions x 1.5h = 15h
Planned schedule
Day |
Place |
Topic |
---|---|---|
Tuesday 10/09 (12:15-14:00) |
T5 (A133) |
Introductory lecture: Course organization and topics overview |
Friday 20/09 (12:15-14:00) |
T4 (A238) | Discussion 1: Model evasion |
Friday 27/09 (12:15-14:00) |
T4 (A238) | Discussion 2: Defending model evasion + Compromised training |
Friday 04/10 (12:15-14:00) |
T4 (A238) | Discussion 3: Model poisoning |
Friday 11/10 (12:15-14:00) |
T4 (A238) | Discussion 4: Model confidentiality |
Tuesday 15/10 (12:15-14:00) |
T5 (A133) | General feedback on presentations + discussions already done |
Friday 01/11 (12:15-14:00) |
T4 (A238) | Discussion 5: Intellectual property protection |
Friday 08/11 (12:15-14:00) |
T4 (A238) | Discussion 6: Training data privacy |
Friday 15/11 (12:15-14:00) |
T5 (A133) | Discussion 7: Privacy preserving distributed training |
Friday 22/11 (12:15-14:00) |
T4 (A238) | Discussion 8: Crypto-based privacy-preserving ML + Fairness in ML prediction |
What students liked about the course last year (selected feedback)
- "It provides a good chance for me to read state-of-the-art articles, the presentation and discussion part also encourage me to think deeper and learn more actively."
- "The lecturers also helped the leader for discussion and opened new topics to discuss. They also assured that we can actually ask something that we are not sure and it is perfectly fine."
- "The discussions, research paper selection, presentations."
- "Experienced participants in the discussions who could contribute interesting points."
- "Really good feedback after our presentations."
- "Really constructive and detailed feedback on how to improve both content and communication."
- "Good feedback!"