Analyzing Adversarial Examples: A Framework to Study Adversary Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial examples are malicious inputs to trained machine learning models supplied to trigger a misclassification. This type of attack has been studied for close to a decade, and we find that there is a lack of study and formalization of adversary knowledge when mounting attacks. This has yielded a complex space of attack research with hard-to-compare threat models and attacks. We solve this in the image classification domain by providing a theoretical framework to study adversary knowledge inspired by work in order theory. We present an adversarial example game, based on cryptographic games, to standardize attack procedures. We survey recent attacks in the image classification domain that showcase the current state of adversarial example research. Together with our formalization, we compile results that both confirm existing beliefs about adversary knowledge, such as the potency of information about the attacked model as well as allow us to derive new conclusions on the difficulty associated with the white-box and transferable threat models, for example, transferable attacks might not be as difficult as previously thought.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".