Adversarial examples detection through the sensitivity in space mappings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial examples (AEs) against deep neural networks (DNNs) raise wide concerns about the robustness of DNNs. Existing detection mechanisms are often limited to a given attack algorithm. Therefore, it is highly desirable to develop a robust detection approach that remains effective for a large group of attack algorithms. In addition, most of the existing defences only perform well for small images (e.g. MNIST and Canadian institute for advanced research (CIFAR)) rather than large images (e.g. ImageNet). In this paper, the authors propose a robust and effective defence method for analysing the sensitivity of various AEs, especially in a much harder case (large images). Their method first creates a feature map from the input space to the new feature space, by utilising 19 different feature mapping methods. Then, a detector is learned with the machine‐learning algorithm to recognise the unique distribution of AEs. Their extensive evaluations on their proposed detector show that their detector can achieve: (i) low false‐positive rate (<1%), (ii) high true‐positive rate (higher than 98%), (iii) low overhead (<0.1 s per input), and (iv) good robustness (work well across different learning models, attack algorithms, and parameters), which demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed detector in practise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".