Adversarial Attack for Asynchronous Event-Based Data
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 neural networks (DNNs) are vulnerable to adversarial examples that are carefully designed to cause the deep learning model to make mistakes. Adversarial examples of 2D images and 3D point clouds have been extensively studied, but studies on event-based data are limited. Event-based data can be an alternative to a 2D image under high-speed movements, such as autonomous driving. However, the given adversarial events make the current deep learning model vulnerable to safety issues. In this work, we generate adversarial examples and then train the robust models for event-based data, for the first time. Our algorithm shifts the time of the original events and generates additional adversarial events. Additional adversarial events are generated in two stages. First, null events are added to the event-based data to generate additional adversarial events. The perturbation size can be controlled with the number of null events. Second, the location and time of additional adversarial events are set to mislead DNNs in a gradient-based attack. Our algorithm achieves an attack success rate of 97.95% on the N-Caltech101 dataset. Furthermore, the adversarial training model improves robustness on the adversarial event data compared to the original model.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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