Adversarial Images Against Super-Resolution Convolutional Neural Networks for Free
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Super-Resolution Convolutional Neural Networks (SRCNNs) with their ability to generate highresolution images from low-resolution counterparts, exacerbate the privacy concerns emerging from automated Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)-based image classifiers. In this work, we hypothesize and empirically show that adversarial examples learned over CNN image classifiers can survive processing by SRCNNs and lead them to generate poor quality images that are hard to classify correctly. We demonstrate that a user with a small CNN is able to learn adversarial noise without requiring any customization for SRCNNs and thwart the privacy threat posed by a pipeline of SRCNN and CNN classifiers (95.8% fooling rate for Fast Gradient Sign with ε = 0.03). We evaluate the survivability of adversarial images generated in both black-box and white-box settings and show that black-box adversarial learning (when both CNN classifier and SRCNN are unknown) is at least as effective as white-box adversarial learning (when only CNN classifier is known). We also assess our hypothesis on adversarial robust CNNs and observe that the supper-resolved white-box adversarial examples can fool these CNNs more than 71.5% of the time.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".