Golyadkin's Torment: Doppelg"angers and Adversarial Vulnerability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Many machine learning (ML) classifiers are claimed to outperform humans, but they still make mistakes that humans do not. The most notorious examples of such mistakes are adversarial visual metamers. This paper aims to define and investigate the phenomenon of adversarial Doppelgangers (AD), which includes adversarial visual metamers, and to compare the performance and robustness of ML classifiers to human performance. We find that AD are inputs that are close to each other with respect to a perceptual metric defined in this paper. AD are qualitatively different from the usual adversarial examples. The vast majority of classifiers are vulnerable to AD and robustness-accuracy trade-offs may not improve them. Some classification problems may not admit any AD robust classifiers because the underlying classes are ambiguous. We provide criteria that can be used to determine whether a classification problem is well defined or not; describe the structure and attributes of an AD-robust classifier; introduce and explore the notions of conceptual entropy and regions of conceptual ambiguity for classifiers that are vulnerable to AD attacks, along with methods to bound the AD fooling rate of an attack. We define the notion of classifiers that exhibit hypersensitive behavior, that is, classifiers whose only mistakes are adversarial Doppelgangers. Improving the AD robustness of hyper-sensitive classifiers is equivalent to improving accuracy. We identify conditions guaranteeing that all classifiers with sufficiently high accuracy are hyper-sensitive. Our findings are aimed at significant improvements in the reliability and security of machine learning systems.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 85 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Oct 2024.
Builds on
18 of 85 references.
References · 18
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
- 2019Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracycited by 1,510
- 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 950
- 2018Robustness May Be at Odds with Accuracycited by 873
- 2015The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settingscited by 784
- 2016Universal adversarial perturbationscited by 774
- 2022Diffusion Models for Adversarial Purificationcited by 469
- 2018Is Robustness the Cost of Accuracy? -- A Comprehensive Study on the Robustness of 18 Deep Image Classification Modelscited by 135
- 2020Feature Purification: How Adversarial Training Performs Robust Deep Learningcited by 107
- 2018Adversarial vulnerability for any classifiercited by 78
6 more
- 2016A Boundary Tilting Persepective on the Phenomenon of Adversarial Examplescited by 70
- 2021Bad Characters: Imperceptible NLP Attackscited by 69
- 2018The Curse of Concentration in Robust Learning: Evasion and Poisoning Attacks from Concentration of Measurecited by 44
- 2022Distilling Robust and Non-Robust Features in Adversarial Examples by Information Bottleneckcited by 30
- 2020Adversarial Robustness of Supervised Sparse Codingcited by 22
- 2022Robust Natural Language Processing: Recent Advances, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 9
Built on by
Not cited yet.