Jujutsu: A Two-stage Defense against Adversarial Patch Attacks on Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial patch attacks create adversarial examples by injecting arbitrary distortions within a bounded region of the input to fool deep neural networks (DNNs). These attacks are robust (i.e., physically-realizable) and universally malicious, and hence represent a severe security threat to real-world DNN-based systems. We propose Jujutsu, a two-stage technique to detect and mitigate robust and universal adversarial patch attacks. We first observe that adversarial patches are crafted as localized features that yield large influence on the prediction output, and continue to dominate the prediction on any input. Jujutsu leverages this observation for accurate attack detection with low false positives. Patch attacks corrupt only a localized region of the input, while the majority of the input remains unperturbed. Therefore, Jujutsu leverages generative adversarial networks (GAN) to perform localized attack recovery by synthesizing the semantic contents of the input that are corrupted by the attacks, and reconstructs a ``clean'' input for correct prediction. We evaluate Jujutsu on four diverse datasets spanning 8 different DNN models, and find that it achieves superior performance and significantly outperforms four existing defenses. We further evaluate Jujutsu against physical-world attacks, as well as adaptive 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".