Preprocessing Failure and Adversarial Detection in Depthwise-Separable Edge Vision Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Preprocessing-based defenses are the standard first-line response to adversarial attacks on edge vision systems, requiring no retraining, no architectural changes, and widely recommended as model-agnostic mitigations. Yet the foundational evaluations of these defenses were conducted on residual or Inception-class architectures, not on the depthwise-separable CNNs that dominate edge deployments. This untested assumption leaves a gap in the security evaluation literature. This paper closes that gap by evaluating six preprocessing defenses against adversarial perturbations across both architecture families. Across all perturbation levels and defenses tested, the two depthwise-separable architectures show consistently poor recovery while the residual architecture shows partial recovery; ablation results are consistent with an architectural rather than parametric explanation, though only three architectures and one attack family are evaluated. Crucially, this failure is not merely a negative result. The same output divergence that disqualifies preprocessing as a recovery mechanism reveals a detection opportunity: preprocessing consistently disrupts clean predictions while leaving adversarial predictions largely unchanged, an asymmetry that is directly measurable without retraining or architectural modification. We further show that standard image quality metrics are unreliable proxies for defense effectiveness, a methodological gap in current evaluation practice. A practitioner decision framework is provided for adversarially resilient edge vision deployment.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2026.
Builds on
20 of 28 references.
References · 20
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
- 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,442
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,155
- 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,795
- 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,998
- 2019Searching for MobileNetV3cited by 1,994
- 2020Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attackscited by 1,451
- 2019Certified Adversarial Robustness via Randomized Smoothingcited by 1,340
- 2018Robustness May Be at Odds with Accuracycited by 880
- 2020RobustBench: a standardized adversarial robustness benchmarkcited by 661
8 more
- 2021MobileViT: Light-weight, General-purpose, and Mobile-friendly Vision Transformercited by 642
- 2020On Adaptive Attacks to Adversarial Example Defensescited by 555
- 2017Countering Adversarial Images using Input Transformationscited by 520
- 2017Feature Squeezing: Detecting Adversarial Examples in Deep Neural Networkscited by 486
- 2017MagNet: a Two-Pronged Defense against Adversarial Examplescited by 269
- 2021Understanding Robustness of Transformers for Image Classificationcited by 249
- 2016A study of the effect of JPG compression on adversarial imagescited by 197
- 2021On the Adversarial Robustness of Vision Transformerscited by 106
Built on by
Not cited yet.