Generative adversarial deep learning in images using Nash equilibrium game theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A generative adversarial learning (GAL) algorithm is presented to overcome the manipulations that take place in adversarial data and to result in a secured convolutional neural network (CNN). The main objective of the generative algorithm is to make some changes to initial data with positive and negative class labels in testing, hence the CNN results in misclassified data. An adversarial algorithm is used to manipulate the input data that represents the boundaries of learner’s decision-making process. The algorithm generates adversarial modifications to the test dataset using a multiplayer stochastic game approach, without learning how to manipulate the data during training. Then the manipulated data is passed through a CNN for evaluation. The multi-player game consists of an interaction between adversaries which generates manipulations and retrains the model by the learner. The Nash equilibrium game theory (NEGT) is applied to Canadian Institute for Advance Research (CIFAR) dataset. This was done to produce a secure CNN output that is more robust to adversarial data manipulations. The experimental results show that proposed NEGT-GAL achieved a grater mean value of 7.92 and takes less wall clock time of 25,243 sec. Therefore, the proposed NEGT-GAL outperforms the compared existing methods and achieves greater performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".