Papers › Copycat CNN: Stealing Knowledge by Persuading Confession with Random Non-Labeled Data
Copycat CNN: Stealing Knowledge by Persuading Confession with Random Non-Labeled Data
Jacson Rodrigues Correia-Silva, Rodrigo F. Berriel, Claudine Badue, Alberto F. de Souza, Thiago Oliveira-Santos
In the past few years, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have been achieving state-of-the-art performance on a variety of problems. Many companies employ resources and money to generate these models and provide them as an API, therefore it is in their best interest to protect them, i.e., to avoid that someone else copies them. Recent studies revealed that state-of-the-art CNNs are vulnerable to adversarial examples attacks, and this weakness indicates that CNNs do not need to operate in the problem domain (PD). Therefore, we hypothesize that they also do not need to be trained with examples of the PD in order to operate in it. Given these facts, in this paper, we investigate if a target black-box CNN can be copied by persuading it to confess its knowledge through random non-labeled data. The copy is two-fold: i) the target network is queried with random data and its predictions are used to create a fake dataset with the knowledge of the network; and ii) a copycat network is trained with the fake dataset and should be able to achieve similar performance as the target network. This hypothesis was evaluated locally in three problems (facial expression, object, and crosswalk classification) and against a cloud-based API. In the copy attacks, images from both non-problem domain and PD were used. All copycat networks achieved at least 93.7% of the performance of the original models with non-problem domain data, and at least 98.6% using additional data from the PD. Additionally, the copycat CNN successfully copied at least 97.3% of the performance of the Microsoft Azure Emotion API. Our results show that it is possible to create a copycat CNN by simply querying a target network as black-box with random non-labeled data.
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="1806.05476")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract.
By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 1 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
3 samples harvested; 1 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 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: 3 of the 3 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 jeiks/Stealing_DL_Models. “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.
e3f8928fcc9b5812 · report
2cd7184053135d4d · report
e8f4fa74fa55f9dc · report
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