You Can’t Fool All the Models: Detect Adversarial Samples via Pruning Models
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
Many adversarial attack methods have investigated the security issue of deep learning models. Previous works on detecting adversarial samples show superior in accuracy but consume too much memory and computing resources. In this paper, we propose an adversarial sample detection method based on pruned models and evaluate four different pruning methods. We find that pruned neural network models are sensitive to adversarial samples, i.e., the pruned models tend to output labels different from the original model when given adversarial samples. Moreover, the pruned model has an extremely small model size and computational cost. Based on the detection result, we further propose a simple but effective defense approach to identify the true label of the adversarial sample. Experiments show that, on average, four different pruning methods outperform the SOTA multi-model based detection method (64.15% and 73.70%) by 28.65% and 18.73% on CIFAR10 and SVHN, respectively, with significantly fewer models used. The FLOPs of our structured pruned model are only 49.41% and 25.62% of the original model. Our defense approach achieves 68.60% and 72.03% average classification accuracy on CIFAR10 and SVHN, exceeding other advanced defense methods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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