A Watermarking-Based Framework for Protecting Deep Image Classifiers Against Adversarial Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although deep learning-based models have achieved tremendous success in image-related tasks, they are known to be vulnerable to adversarial examples—inputs with imperceptible, but subtly crafted perturbation which fool the models to produce incorrect outputs. To distinguish adversarial examples from benign images, in this paper, we propose a novel watermarking-based framework for protecting deep image classifiers against adversarial attacks. The proposed framework consists of a watermark encoder, a possible adversary, and a detector followed by a deep image classifier to be protected. Specific methods of watermarking and detection are also presented. It is shown by experiment on a subset of ImageNet validation dataset that the proposed framework along with the presented methods of watermarking and detection is effective against a wide range of advanced attacks (static and adaptive), achieving a near zero (effective) false negative rate for FGSM and PGD attacks (static and adaptive) with the guaranteed zero false positive rate. In addition, for all tested deep image classifiers (ResNet50V2, MobileNetV2, InceptionV3), the impact of watermarking on classification accuracy is insignificant with, on average, 0.63% and 0.49% degradation in top 1 and top 5 accuracy, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".