Generalizable Adversarial Examples Detection Based on Bi-model Decision Mismatch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern applications of artificial neural networks have yielded remarkable performance gains in a wide range of tasks. However, recent studies have discovered that such modelling strategy is vulnerable to Adversarial Examples, i.e. examples with subtle perturbations often too small and imperceptible to humans, but that can easily fool neural networks. Defense techniques against adversarial examples have been proposed, but ensuring robust performance against varying or novel types of attacks remains an open problem. In this work, we focus on the detection setting, in which case attackers become identifiable while models remain vulnerable. Particularly, we employ the decision layer of independently trained models as features for posterior detection. The proposed framework does not require any prior knowledge of adversarial examples generation techniques, and can be directly employed along with unmodified off-the-shelf models. Experiments on the standard MNIST and CIFAR10 datasets deliver empirical evidence that such detection approach generalizes well across not only different adversarial examples generation methods but also quality degradation attacks. Non-linear binary classifiers trained on top of our proposed features can achieve a high detection rate (>90%) in a set of white-box attacks and maintain such performance when tested against unseen attacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".