Spatio-temporal Explanation for Adversarial-Aware Cloud Vision AI Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building upon our previous work on trustworthy explanation of cloud AI services published in IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing (doi: 10.1109/TCC.2024.3398609), this extension proposes a spatio-temporal explanation framework to enhance the adversarial awareness of cloud vision services. Along with the increasing adoption of vision models for learning tasks on video streams, adversarial attack on video becomes a severe source of degrading the cloud vision service's efficacy. The explanation of the spatial features of local image frames and temporal properties along the timeline of frames enables transparency and awareness of the impact source under adversarial attacks. This extension addresses two critical challenges, namely (1) the development of unified spatiotemporal explanations that can handle both image and video models; and (2) the assessment of the vulnerability of cloud vision models to adversarial attacks and their impact on explanation trustworthiness. The proposed extension research will integrate adversarial robustness assessment with spatio-temporal feature analysis, enabling unified explanation pipelines for the multi-tasks of cloud vision services.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".