On The Generation of Unrestricted Adversarial Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial examples are inputs designed by an adversary with the goal of fooling the machine learning models. Most of the research about adversarial examples have focused on perturbing the natural inputs with the assumption that the true label remains unchanged. Even in this limited setting and despite extensive studies in recent years, there is no defence against adversarial examples for complex tasks (e.g., ImageNet). However, for simpler tasks like handwritten digit classification, a robust model seems to be within reach. Unlike perturbation-based adversarial examples, the adversary is not limited to small norm-based perturbations in unrestricted adversarial examples. Hence, defending against unrestricted adversarial examples is a more challenging task. In this paper, we show that previous methods for generating unrestricted adversarial examples ignored a large part of the adversarial subspace. In particular, we demonstrate the bias of previous methods towards generating samples that are far inside the decision boundaries of an auxiliary classifier. We also show the similarity of the decision boundaries of an auxiliary classifier and baseline CNNs. By putting these two evidence together, we explain why adversarial examples generated by the previous approaches lack the desired transferability. Additionally, we present an efficient technique to create adversarial examples using generative adversarial networks to address this issue. We demonstrate that even the state-of-the-art MNIST classifiers are vulnerable to the adversarial examples generated with this technique. Additionally, we show that examples generated with our method are transferable. Accordingly, we hope that new proposed defences use this attack to evaluate the robustness of their models against unrestricted 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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".