Modeling and Energy Analysis of Adversarial Perturbations in Deep Image Classification Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the great success of deep neural networks (DNNs) in computer vision, they are vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Given a well-trained DNN and an image$x$, a malicious and imperceptible perturbation$\varepsilon$can be easily crafted and added to$x$to generate an adversarial example$x^{\prime}$. The output of the DNN in response to$x^{\prime}$will be different from that of the DNN in response to$x$• To shed light on how to defend DNNs against such adversarial attacks, in this paper, we apply statistical methods to model and analyze adversarial perturbations$\varepsilon$crafted by FGSM, PGD, and CW attacks. It is shown statistically that (1) the adversarial perturbations$\varepsilon$crafted by FGSM, PGD, and CW attacks can all be modelled in the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) domain by the Transparent Composite Model (TCM) based on generalized Gaussian (GGTCM); (2) CW attack puts more perturbation energy in the background of an image than in the object of the image, while there is no such distinction for FGSM and PGD attacks; and (3) the energy of adversarial perturbation in the case of CW attack is more concentrated on DC components than in the case of FGSM and PGD attacks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".