Detecting Adversarial Samples from Artifacts
Open accessAbstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) are powerful nonlinear architectures that are known to be robust to random perturbations of the input. However, these models are vulnerable to adversarial perturbations--small input changes crafted explicitly to fool the model. In this paper, we ask whether a DNN can distinguish adversarial samples from their normal and noisy counterparts. We investigate model confidence on adversarial samples by looking at Bayesian uncertainty estimates, available in dropout neural networks, and by performing density estimation in the subspace of deep features learned by the model. The result is a method for implicit adversarial detection that is oblivious to the attack algorithm. We evaluate this method on a variety of standard datasets including MNIST and CIFAR-10 and show that it generalizes well across different architectures and attacks. Our findings report that 85-93% ROC-AUC can be achieved on a number of standard classification tasks with a negative class that consists of both normal and noisy samples.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Techniques for uncertainty estimation can also lessen deep neural networks' susceptibility to adversarial attacks.
“In addition to producing valuable measures that function as uncertainty measures [358, 359, 66], these techniques can also lessen deep neural networks susceptibility to adversarial attacks [357, 360].”
From An overview of deep learning in medical imaging focusing on MRI (2019) · cites this paper as [360]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 17 · Cited by 606
- Authors
- Feinman, R., Curtin, R. R., Shintre, S., & Gardner, A. B.
- Affiliations
- NortonLifeLock (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Curtin, Ryan R.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2017
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1703.00410
- OpenAlex
- W2594867206
- Cited by
- 606
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 120 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 14
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
- Keywords
- adversarial sample detection, adversarial perturbations, deep neural network, Bayesian uncertainty, dropout, density estimation, deep features, model confidence, robustness, image classification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review