A Watermarking-Based Framework for Protecting Deep Image Classifiers Against Adversarial Attacks
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
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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