Generalizable Adversarial Examples Detection Based on Bi-model Decision Mismatch
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it