Adversarial Exposure Attack on Diabetic Retinopathy Imagery Grading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss around the world. To help diagnose it, numerous cutting-edge works have built powerful deep neural networks (DNNs) to automatically grade DR via retinal fundus images (RFIs). However, RFIs are commonly affected by camera exposure issues that may lead to incorrect grades. The mis-graded results can potentially pose high risks to an aggravation of the condition. In this paper, we study this problem from the viewpoint of adversarial attacks. We identify and introduce a novel solution to an entirely new task, termed as adversarial exposure attack, which is able to produce natural exposure images and mislead the state-of-the-art DNNs. We validate our proposed method on a real-world public DR dataset with three DNNs, e.g., ResNet50, MobileNet, and EfficientNet, demonstrating that our method achieves high image quality and success rate in transferring the attacks. Our method reveals the potential threats to DNN-based automatic DR grading and would benefit the development of exposure-robust DR grading methods in the future.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".