Papers › Copy, Right? A Testing Framework for Copyright Protection of Deep Learning Models

Copy, Right? A Testing Framework for Copyright Protection of Deep Learning Models

10 Dec 2021arXiv:2112.05588links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Jialuo Chen, Jingyi Wang, Tinglan Peng, Youcheng Sun, Peng Cheng, Shouling Ji, Xingjun Ma, Bo Li, Dawn Song

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Deep learning (DL) models, especially those large-scale and high-performance ones, can be very costly to train, demanding a great amount of data and computational resources. Unauthorized reproduction of DL models can lead to copyright infringement and cause huge economic losses to model owners. Existing copyright protection techniques are mostly based on watermarking, which embeds an owner-specified watermark into the model. While being able to provide exact ownership verification, these techniques are 1) invasive, as they need to tamper with the training process, which may affect the utility or introduce new security risks; 2) prone to adaptive attacks that attempt to remove the watermark; and 3) not robust to the emerging model extraction attacks. Latest fingerprinting work, though being non-invasive, also falls short when facing the diverse and ever-growing attack scenarios. In this paper, we propose a novel testing framework for DL copyright protection: DEEPJUDGE. DEEPJUDGE quantitatively tests the similarities between two DL models: a victim model and a suspect model. It leverages a diverse set of testing metrics and test case generation methods to produce a chain of supporting evidence to help determine whether a suspect model is a copy of the victim model. Advantages of DEEPJUDGE include: 1) non-invasive, as it works directly on the model and does not tamper with the training process; 2) efficient, as it only needs a small set of test cases and a quick scan of models; 3) flexible, as it can easily incorporate new metrics or generation methods to obtain more confident judgement; and 4) fairly robust to model extraction and adaptive attacks. We verify the effectiveness of DEEPJUDGE under typical copyright infringement scenarios, including model finetuning, pruning and extraction, via extensive experiments on both image and speech datasets with a variety of model architectures.

Code

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

11 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 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 11 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 testing4ai/deepjudge. “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.

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