Papers › Bilateral Dependency Optimization: Defending Against Model-inversion Attacks
Bilateral Dependency Optimization: Defending Against Model-inversion Attacks
Xiong Peng, Feng Liu, Jingfen Zhang, Long Lan, Junjie Ye, Tongliang Liu, Bo Han
Through using only a well-trained classifier, model-inversion (MI) attacks can recover the data used for training the classifier, leading to the privacy leakage of the training data. To defend against MI attacks, previous work utilizes a unilateral dependency optimization strategy, i.e., minimizing the dependency between inputs (i.e., features) and outputs (i.e., labels) during training the classifier. However, such a minimization process conflicts with minimizing the supervised loss that aims to maximize the dependency between inputs and outputs, causing an explicit trade-off between model robustness against MI attacks and model utility on classification tasks. In this paper, we aim to minimize the dependency between the latent representations and the inputs while maximizing the dependency between latent representations and the outputs, named a bilateral dependency optimization (BiDO) strategy. In particular, we use the dependency constraints as a universally applicable regularizer in addition to commonly used losses for deep neural networks (e.g., cross-entropy), which can be instantiated with appropriate dependency criteria according to different tasks. To verify the efficacy of our strategy, we propose two implementations of BiDO, by using two different dependency measures: BiDO with constrained covariance (BiDO-COCO) and BiDO with Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion (BiDO-HSIC). Experiments show that BiDO achieves the state-of-the-art defense performance for a variety of datasets, classifiers, and MI attacks while suffering a minor classification-accuracy drop compared to the well-trained classifier with no defense, which lights up a novel road to defend against MI attacks.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2206.05483")
Code
Syntology Ran 6 of 18 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 12 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 4 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 18 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
18 samples harvested; 6 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 12 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 18 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from xpeng9719/defend_mi. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
4d7100d163a0ad4f · report
5140f76be90b05a2 · report
c41836f3e51fa8f1 · report
aa4cae054b657ba2 · report
e8dfc0e2df364d99 · report
7a46ab6d33c637db · report
d30f849071ebea54 · report
83d772c48bd4e1cc · report
231adc85ec00eba1 · report
0def50a351111624 · report
56afde1af5757691 · report
8dcbb65408aae9e3 · report
c945372835eb9223 · report
7a33df383fc5fb9d · report
d8ff7dc2584b42c8 · report
cd1a232569d08a1b · report
28d3a35157f2916d · report
4015ab1f3ab9b881 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections