Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overarching goal of this work is to explore the security landscape of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). In recent years, their adoption started to gain traction, and they are now used in many critical domains. Security is paramount in many of these domains. Since GANs are a system of two or more neural networks, security weaknesses in one of its components can be exploited against the system. This is the attack vector considered in this work. Specifically, this research evaluated the threat potential of an adversarial attack against the discriminator part of the system. Such an attack aims to distort the output by injecting maliciously modified input during training. The attack was empirically evaluated against four types of GANs, injections of 10% and 20% malicious data, and two datasets. The targets were CGAN, ACGAN, WGAN, and WGAN-GP. The datasets were MNIST and F-MNIST. The attack was created by improving an existing attack on GANs. The lower bound for the injection size turned out to be 10% for the improvement and 10-20% for the baseline attack. It was shown that the attack on WGAN-GP can overcome a filtering-based defence for F-MNIST. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that differentially private GANs are likely impossible to defend using current countermeasures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".