MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302082990 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.01844

Multiclass ASMA vs Targeted PGD Attack in Image Segmentation

2022· preprint· en· W4302082990 on OpenAlex
Johnson Vo, Jiabao Xie, Sahil Patel

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeneralizationSegmentationImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Contextual image classificationAdversarial systemImage segmentationVulnerability (computing)Machine learningComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning networks have demonstrated high performance in a large variety of applications, such as image classification, speech recognition, and natural language processing. However, there exists a major vulnerability exploited by the use of adversarial attacks. An adversarial attack imputes images by altering the input image very slightly, making it nearly undetectable to the naked eye, but results in a very different classification by the network. This paper explores the projected gradient descent (PGD) attack and the Adaptive Mask Segmentation Attack (ASMA) on the image segmentation DeepLabV3 model using two types of architectures: MobileNetV3 and ResNet50, It was found that PGD was very consistent in changing the segmentation to be its target while the generalization of ASMA to a multiclass target was not as effective. The existence of such attack however puts all of image classification deep learning networks in danger of exploitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it