When Priors Backfire: On the Vulnerability of Unlearnable Examples to Pretraining
Organizations: Western University · Concordia University · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Vector Institute
Abstract
Unlearnable Examples (UEs) serve as a data protection strategy that generates imperceptible perturbations to mislead models into learning spurious correlations instead of underlying semantics. In this paper, we uncover a fundamental vulnerability of UEs that emerges when learning starts from a pretrained model. Crucially, our empirical analysis shows that even when data are protected by carefully crafted perturbations, pretraining priors still furnish rich semantic representations that allow the model to circumvent the shortcuts introduced by UEs and capture genuine features, thereby nullifying unlearnability. To address this, we propose BAIT (Binding Artificial perturbations to Incorrect Targets), a novel bi-level optimization formulation. Specifically, the inner level aims at associating the perturbed samples with real labels to simulate standard data-label alignment, while the outer level actively disrupts this alignment by enforcing a mislabel-perturbation binding that maps samples to designated incorrect targets. This mechanism effectively overrides the semantic guidance of priors, forcing the model to rely on the injected perturbations and consequently preventing the acquisition of true semantics. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks and multiple pretrained backbones demonstrate that BAIT effectively mitigates the influence of pretraining priors and maintains data unlearnability.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Backbone | Clean | EMN | TUE | REM | LSP | GUE | 14A | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIFAR-10 | ResNet-18 | 84.10 | 61.82 | 82.72 | 74.46 | 54.20 | 23.17 | 65.70 | 14.40 |
| ResNet-50 | 86.48 | 57.54 | 85.68 | 85.06 | 65.00 | 71.42 | 72.81 | 14.82 | |
| VGG-11 | 88.39 | 80.90 | 87.67 | 63.32 | 55.63 | 45.77 | 50.80 | 22.14 | |
| DenseNet-121 | 87.17 | 63.31 | 86.30 | 61.05 | 62.66 | 72.31 | 74.89 | 20.32 | |
| CIFAR-100 | ResNet-18 | 55.73 | 55.53 | 55.20 | 55.22 | 36.98 | 54.09 | 33.67 | 20.77 |
| ResNet-50 | 60.73 | 45.78 | 59.54 | 58.69 | 42.84 | 53.14 | 36.58 | 28.02 |
| Method | CIFAR-10 | CIFAR-100 | SVHN |
|---|---|---|---|
| EMN ∗ | 59.84 | 45.20 | 32.33 |
| TUE ∗ | 82.65 | 55.28 | 47.71 |
| REM ∗ | 56.08 | 34.30 | 55.26 |
| Ours | 14.40 | 20.77 | 14.37 |
| Dataset | Pretraining Prior | EMN | TUE | REM | LSP | GUE | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIFAR-10 | CIFAR-100 | 48.58 | 82.26 | 60.88 | 60.64 | 27.05 | 20.58 |
| SVHN | 28.33 | 49.00 | 37.91 | 38.53 | 15.55 | 9.75 | |
| CIFAR-100 | CIFAR-10 | 33.67 | 61.05 | 24.77 | 35.08 | 66.93 | 22.89 |
| SVHN | 62.57 | 62.18 | 16.77 | 26.14 | 59.10 | 11.21 | |
| SVHN | CIFAR-10 | 19.13 | 12.80 | 70.43 | 26.73 | 29.35 | 11.27 |
| CIFAR-100 | 28.75 | 19.47 | 64.42 | 47.71 | 24.14 | 17.49 |
| Dataset | Pretraining Prior | EMN | TUE | REM | LSP | GUE | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flowers | ImageNet | 44.36 | 46.63 | 43.91 | 47.76 | 45.18 | 24.91 |
| ImageNet ∗ | ImageNet † | 51.98 | 59.00 | 59.12 | 59.44 | 37.72 | 24.22 |
| Stage1 | Stage2 | Stage3 | CIFAR-10 | CIFAR-100 | SVHN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✓ | 23.68 | 35.75 | 21.75 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 20.60 | 23.94 | 16.58 | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 14.40 | 20.77 | 14.37 |
| Method | ResNet-18 | ResNet-50 | VGG-11 | DenseNet-121 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMN | 16.42 | 13.45 | 16.93 | 14.71 |
| TUE | 10.67 | 12.23 | 12.79 | 17.60 |
| REM | 15.18 | 25.57 | 47.68 | 41.54 |
| LSP | 13.54 | 15.94 | 17.15 | 17.47 |
| GUE | 13.25 | 12.97 | 23.89 | 13.71 |
| 14A | 41.34 | 24.85 | 39.87 | 48.97 |
| Method | w/o | Cutout | CutMix | Mixup |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clean | 84.10 | 83.25 | 83.06 | 84.14 |
| EMN | 61.82 | 51.60 | 54.71 | 68.70 |
| TUE | 82.72 | 81.54 | 81.35 | 82.69 |
| REM | 74.46 | 65.39 | 73.71 | 78.08 |
| LSP | 54.20 | 44.68 | 51.53 | 59.44 |
| GUE | 23.17 | 29.31 | 28.30 | 34.48 |
| JPEG Compression | 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clean | 82.64 | 82.13 | 81.08 | 80.58 | 80.03 | 79.19 | 77.77 | 75.64 | 73.95 |
| EMN | 68.22 | 69.09 | 69.23 | 69.13 | 69.91 | 71.32 | 73.47 | 74.18 | 74.46 |
| TUE | 81.21 | 80.41 | 79.91 | 79.62 | 79.70 | 79.26 | 78.91 | 77.81 | 75.11 |
| REM | 77.15 | 77.29 | 78.08 | 78.17 | 78.34 | 78.55 | 78.33 | 78.14 | 75.33 |
| LSP | 55.47 | 57.24 | 59.56 | 61.43 | 63.48 | 63.84 | 64.86 | 68.53 | 71.00 |
| GUE | 60.94 | 65.59 | 66.73 | 66.86 | 68.39 | 69.18 | 70.11 | 72.33 | 72.88 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Block Name | Layer | Number |
| Down-sampling layers | ||
| Conv | Conv (3 × 3) | × 6 |
| InstanceNorm | ||
| ReLU | ||
| Bottleneck layers | ||
| Residual | ReflectionPad | × 8 |
| Finetuning Dataset | Accuracy Variation ( ) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch 1 | Epoch 2 | Epoch 60 | ||
| Clean CIFAR-10 | -36.45 | -53.83 | -55.28 | |
| Unlearnable CIFAR-10 (Ours) | -40.66 | -55.11 | -55.35 | |
| Dataset | EMN | TUE | REM | LSP | GUE | 14A | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIFAR-10 | 61.82 | 82.72 | 74.46 | 54.20 | 23.17 | 65.70 | 15.97 |
| CIFAR-100 | 55.53 | 55.20 | 55.22 | 36.98 | 54.09 | 33.67 | 22.83 |
| SVHN | 37.55 | 41.15 | 76.45 | 38.91 | 39.68 | 81.47 | 17.93 |
| Method | Pascal VOC 2012 Semantic (mIoU (%) ) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aeroplane | Bicycle | Bird | Boat | Bottle | |
| Clean | 80.9 | 35.6 | 84.4 | 65.8 | 74.7 |
| UnSeg | 30.5 | 16.4 | 58.6 | 19.1 | 40.4 |
| LSP | 41.3 | 50.2 | 63.3 | 46.9 | 57.1 |
| Ours | 40.0 | 49.0 | 60.4 | 44.6 | 53.5 |
| Poison Ratio | 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clean ( ) | 83.13 | 82.97 | 82.20 | 81.40 | 80.02 | 78.40 | 76.96 | 73.88 | 67.57 | |
| EMN | 83.58 | 83.41 | 83.32 | 83.08 | 83.04 | 82.37 | 81.24 | 80.52 | 77.28 | 61.82 |
| TUE | 83.87 | 83.83 | 83.81 | 83.79 | 83.54 | 83.43 | 83.39 | 83.03 | 82.97 | 82.72 |
| REM | 84.18 | 83.79 | 83.63 | 83.05 | 82.69 | 82.90 | 81.96 | 81.09 | 79.81 | 74.46 |
| LSP | 83.56 | 83.51 | 82.53 | 82.49 | 81.48 | 80.29 | 79.68 | 77.97 | 74.91 | 54.20 |
| GUE | 83.94 | 83.58 | 83.48 | 82.48 | 81.79 | 81.14 | 79.88 | 78.18 | 74.50 | 23.17 |
Unlearnable Examples
Unlearnable examples use data perturbations to prevent machine-learning models from learning protected images, text, graphs, or other data.
See all 17 papersDual-branch Robust Unlearnable Examples
DUNE, a Dual-branch UNlearnable Ensemble perturbation optimization approach. Specifically, DUNE separately optimizes perturbations in the spatial and color domains to establish the mapping between perturbations and shift-induced labels. This design extends the perturbation domain to increase noise intensity for improving robustness and drives the models to learn perturbation-oriented features with degraded generalization, thereby achieving unlearnability. To strengthen DUNE's performance, we further propose an unlearnability-enhancing ensemble strategy that aggregates diverse pre-trained models during the dual-branch optimization. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets CIFAR-10 and ImageNet verify that DUNE's robustness outperforms 12 SOTA UE schemes under 7 mainstream defenses, yielding a lower average test accuracy of 14.95% to 50.82%.