The Generation of Visually Credible Adversarial Examples with Genetic Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An adversarial example is an input that a neural network misclassifies although the input differs only slightly from an input that the network classifies correctly. Adversarial examples are used to augment neural network training data, measure the vulnerability of neural networks, and provide intuitive interpretations of neural network output that humans can understand. Although adversarial examples are defined in the literature as similar to authentic input from the perspective of humans, the literature measures similarity with mathematical norms that are not scientifically correlated with human perception. Our main contributions are to construct a genetic algorithm (GA) that generates adversarial examples more similar to authentic input than do existing methods and to demonstrate with a survey that humans perceive those adversarial examples to have greater visual similarity than existing methods. The GA incorporates a neural network, and we test many parameter sets to determine which fitness function, selection operator, mutation operator, and neural network generate adversarial examples most visually similar to authentic input. We establish which mathematical norms are most correlated with human perception, which permits future research to incorporate the human perspective without testing many norms or conducting intensive surveys with human subjects. We also document a tradeoff between speed and quality in adversarial examples generated by GAs and existing methods. Although existing adversarial methods are faster, a GA provides higher-quality adversarial examples in terms of visual similarity and feasibility of adversarial examples. We apply the GA to the Modified National Institute of Standards and Technology (MNIST) and Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR-10) datasets.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".