A Universal Detection Method for Adversarial Examples and Fake Images
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
Deep-learning technologies have shown impressive performance on many tasks in recent years. However, there are multiple serious security risks when using deep-learning technologies. For examples, state-of-the-art deep-learning technologies are vulnerable to adversarial examples that make the model's predictions wrong due to some specific subtle perturbation, and these technologies can be abused for the tampering with and forgery of multimedia, i.e., deep forgery. In this paper, we propose a universal detection framework for adversarial examples and fake images. We observe some differences in the distribution of model outputs for normal and adversarial examples (fake images) and train the detector to learn the differences. We perform extensive experiments on the CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 datasets. Experimental results show that the proposed framework has good feasibility and effectiveness in detecting adversarial examples or fake images. Moreover, the proposed framework has good generalizability for the different datasets and model structures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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