Panda or Not Panda? Understanding Adversarial Attacks with Interactive Visualization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial machine learning (AML) studies attacks that can fool machine learning algorithms into generating incorrect outcomes as well as the defenses against worst-case attacks to strengthen model robustness. Specifically for image classification, it is challenging to understand adversarial attacks due to their use of subtle perturbations that are not human-interpretable, as well as the variability of attack impacts influenced by diverse methodologies, instance differences, and model architectures. Through a design study with AML learners, and teachers, we introduce AdvEx , a multi-level interactive visualization system that comprehensively presents the properties and impacts of evasion attacks on different image classifiers for novice AML learners. We quantitatively and qualitatively assessed AdvEx in a two-part evaluation including user studies and expert interviews. Our results show that AdvEx is not only highly effective as a visualization tool for understanding AML mechanisms but also provides an engaging and enjoyable learning experience, thus demonstrating its overall benefits for AML learners.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it