VillanDiffusion: A Unified Backdoor Attack Framework for Diffusion Models

Diffusion Models (DMs) are state-of-the-art generative models that learn a reversible corruption process from iterative noise addition and denoising. They are the backbone of many generative AI applications, such as text-to-image conditional generation. However, recent studies have shown that basic unconditional DMs (e.g., DDPM and DDIM) are vulnerable to backdoor injection, a type of output manipulation attack triggered by a maliciously embedded pattern at model input. This paper presents a unified backdoor attack framework (VillanDiffusion) to expand the current scope of backdoor analysis for DMs. Our framework covers mainstream unconditional and conditional DMs (denoising-based and score-based) and various training-free samplers for holistic evaluations. Experiments show that our unified framework facilitates the backdoor analysis of different DM configurations and provides new insights into caption-based backdoor attacks on DMs. Our code is available on GitHub: \url{https://github.com/IBM/villandiffusion}

Paper

References (57)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer zhWX5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-01

Summary

This paper presents a unified backdoor attack framework (VillanDiffusion) to expand the current scope of backdoor analysis for DMs. The proposed framework covers mainstream unconditional and conditional DMs (denoising-based and score-based) and various training-free samplers for holistic evaluations.

Strengths

1. Their experimental results not only analyzed DDPM but also score-based models. Besides, they also analyzed other acceleration sampling methods. 2. Their experiments included caption triggers.

Weaknesses

1. To show that no modifications are needed to the sampling process, the article should include details of the sampling process. 2. The order of formulas 8-12 in the article is not clear enough. To describe in the order of forward process → backward process → sampling process may be more clear. 3. Please check some spelling errors in the article. For example, "Praobility" in the title on line 138. 4. Please check whether the last term in Eq. 4 is $L_0(x_1,x_0)$. 5. The article claims that BadDiffusion will fail when the coefficient is $\frac{1}{2}$ (line 55), but there is no further explanation. 6. The article claims that an attacker only needs to obtain the model parameters $\theta_{download}$. However, to execute a backdoor attack, some adjustments need to be made to the initial noise. This is difficult to achieve in reality, and the article needs to emphasize this point. 7. Although the article extends the attack to other models, such as score-based models, there is no essential difference from BadDiffusion[2]. On BadDiffusion, just changing the coefficient of the noise term $1-\bar\alpha_t \mathbf{I}$ in the formula $q\left(\mathbf{x}_{t}^{\prime} \mid \mathbf{x}_{0}^{\prime}\right):=\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbf{x}_{t}^{\prime} ; \sqrt{\bar{\alpha}_{t}} \mathbf{x}_{0}^{\prime}+\left(1-\sqrt{\bar{\alpha}_{t}}\right) \mathbf{r},\left(1-\bar{\alpha}_{t}\right) \mathbf{I}\right)$ (Eq. 6 in their article [2]) to $b_k \mathbf{I}$ can easily obtain the results in this article. In addition, Eq. 11 is only a change of sign of Eq. 38 in [1]. [1] Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D. P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., & Poole, B. (2020). Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456. [2] Chou, S. Y., Chen, P. Y., & Ho, T. Y. (2023). How to backdoor diffusion models?. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 4015-4024).

Questions

Please see the Weakness part.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The authors didn’t mention any potential limitations. The authors can list limitations of the application. For example, to apply their method, the attacker needs to access the initial noise, which is not practical sometimes. Besides, the negative societal impact should also be included.

Reviewer mTjd6/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-05

Summary

This paper proposed a backdoor attack framework called VillanDiffusion, which extends the existing backdoor analysis capabilities for deep models (DMs). By encompassing both unconditional and conditional DMs, including denoising-based and score-based models, as well as incorporating training-free samplers, the proposed framework enables holistic evaluations of backdoor attacks. Experiments demonstrate that VillanDiffusion not only facilitates the analysis of diverse DM configurations but also offers valuable insights into caption-based backdoor attacks on DMs.

Strengths

The paper is written in a clear and understandable manner, making it accessible to a wide range of readers. The authors effectively convey their ideas and concepts, ensuring that the content is comprehensible. Besides, the authors provide a thorough analysis of backdoor attacks on deep models and propose a unified approach, VillanDiffusion.

Weaknesses

There are concerns regarding the effectiveness of the VillanDiffusion framework The framework proves to be effective when the poison ratio reaches up to 20%, which is significantly higher than what is typically observed in other tasks. This discrepancy raises doubts about the practicality of the framework, emphasizing the need for further investigation and evaluation across various tasks and poison ratios to ensure its broader applicability.

Questions

See the above weakness.

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer FRNp5/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-06

Summary

This paper proposes a universal backdoor attack framework on diffusion models facing different kinds of content schedulers, different kinds of samplers, and conditional and unconditional tasks.

Strengths

1. This paper proposes a universal backdoor attack framework on diffusion models, which are important. 2. The experiments are sufficient. 3. This paper is well written and technically sound.

Weaknesses

1. From my point of view, backdoor in diffusion models is an end-to-end process, can you explain the main difference from some prior works in diffusion models such as [1]? If the only difference is to test on different diffusion models, the contribution is limited. 2. There is no comparison with the former methods, and thus I cannot find out whether there is improvement in backdoor attack. 3.There are some flaws such as line 191 learns should. [1] Chou S Y, Chen P Y, Ho T Y. How to backdoor diffusion models?[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023: 4015-4024.

Questions

Can you explain the main difference from some prior works in diffusion models such as [1]?

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer FG5D5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-08

Summary

The paper presents VillanDiffusion, a framework for analyzing backdoor attacks on different types of diffusion models (DMs). VillanDiffusion covers various DM configurations such as unconditional and conditional DMs or training-free samplers and provides new insights into caption-based backdoor attacks.

Strengths

+ originality, the paper presents a unified framework for analyzing backdoor attacks on DMs, covering various configurations and training-free samplers. the soundness of this paper is also noteworthy, with detailed proof in Appendix. + The experiments are comprehensive and demonstrate the effectiveness of the VillanDiffusion framework in detecting backdoor attacks on DMs. + The paper is well-structured, with each section building on the previous one, making it easy to follow.

Weaknesses

- the effectiveness of their backdoor attack on Celeba is limited: the increased FID score is huge in this scenario, which does not show the advantage of their method against other baselines.

Questions

- how to read the figure 2a and 2e? on line 278, this paper says that "From Fig. 2a and Fig. 2e, we can see the FID score of the backdoored DM on CelebA-HQ-Dialog is slightly better than the clean one". However, it seems that data in Fig. 2a and Fig. 2e are the generated clean samples by the backdoored model. - lack of further analysis about the robustness of various configurations of DMs against backdoor attacks: since VillanDiffusion can generalize to different mechanisms, samplers, and schedulers, it is worthwhile to analyze how the different modules affects the robustness of DMs. - how DMs pretrained on cifar-10 become stronger in terms of utility after being fine-tuned on cifar-10? on line 298, this paper says that "We can see all samplers reach lower FID scores than the clean models under 70% poison rate for the image trigger Hat." Since the data used for pretraining and fine-tuning is the same, why does the generation ability of DMs still increase?

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

yes

Reviewer zhWX2023-08-18

Reply to the rebuttal

Thank you for the kind response. Most of the concerns were addressed and I decided to increase my score.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

We thank Reviewer zhWX for your reply and for increasing our rating! Again, we thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-21

We appreciate the reviewer's response and for increasing your rating score!

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC