Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAdversarial Attacks and Defenses on Graphs: A Review, A Tool and Empirical Studies
110
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Wei Jin
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have achieved significant performance in various tasks. However, recent studies have shown that DNNs can be easily fooled by small perturbation on the input, called adversarial attacks. As the extensions of DNNs to graphs, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been demonstrated to inherit this vulnerability. Adversary can mislead GNNs to give wrong predictions by modifying the graph structure such as manipulating a few edges. This vulnerability has arisen tremendous concerns for adapting GNNs in safety-critical applications and has attracted increasing research attention in recent years. Thus, it is necessary and timely to provide a comprehensive overview of existing graph adversarial attacks and the countermeasures. In this survey, we categorize existing attacks and defenses, and review the corresponding state-of-the-art methods. Furthermore, we have developed a repository with representative algorithms (https://github.com/DSE-MSU/DeepRobust/tree/master/deeprobust/graph). The repository enables us to conduct empirical studies to deepen our understandings on attacks and defenses on graphs.
rate research
Read More
Physiological computing uses human physiological data as system inputs in real time. It includes, or significantly overlaps with, brain-computer interfaces, affective computing, adaptive automation, health informatics, and physiological signal based biometrics. Physiological computing increases the communication bandwidth from the user to the computer, but is also subject to various types of adversarial attacks, in which the attacker deliberately manipulates the training and/or test examples to hijack the machine learning algorithm output, leading to possibly user confusion, frustration, injury, or even death. However, the vulnerability of physiological computing systems has not been paid enough attention to, and there does not exist a comprehensive review on adversarial attacks to it. This paper fills this gap, by providing a systematic review on the main research areas of physiological computing, different types of adversarial attacks and their applications to physiological computing, and the corresponding defense strategies. We hope this review will attract more research interests on the vulnerability of physiological computing systems, and more importantly, defense strategies to make them more secure.
Robustness against image perturbations bounded by a $ell_p$ ball have been well-studied in recent literature. Perturbations in the real-world, however, rarely exhibit the pixel independence that $ell_p$ threat models assume. A recently proposed Wasserstein distance-bounded threat model is a promising alternative that limits the perturbation to pixel mass movements. We point out and rectify flaws in previous definition of the Wasserstein threat model and explore stronger attacks and defenses under our better-defined framework. Lastly, we discuss the inability of current Wasserstein-robust models in defending against perturbations seen in the real world. Our code and trained models are available at https://github.com/edwardjhu/improved_wasserstein .
Despite the recent advances in a wide spectrum of applications, machine learning models, especially deep neural networks, have been shown to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Attackers add carefully-crafted perturbations to input, where the perturbations are almost imperceptible to humans, but can cause models to make wrong predictions. Techniques to protect models against adversarial input are called adversarial defense methods. Although many approaches have been proposed to study adversarial attacks and defenses in different scenarios, an intriguing and crucial challenge remains that how to really understand model vulnerability? Inspired by the saying that if you know yourself and your enemy, you need not fear the battles, we may tackle the aforementioned challenge after interpreting machine learning models to open the black-boxes. The goal of model interpretation, or interpretable machine learning, is to extract human-understandable terms for the working mechanism of models. Recently, some approaches start incorporating interpretation into the exploration of adversarial attacks and defenses. Meanwhile, we also observe that many existing methods of adversarial attacks and defenses, although not explicitly claimed, can be understood from the perspective of interpretation. In this paper, we review recent work on adversarial attacks and defenses, particularly from the perspective of machine learning interpretation. We categorize interpretation into two types, feature-level interpretation and model-level interpretation. For each type of interpretation, we elaborate on how it could be used for adversarial attacks and defenses. We then briefly illustrate additional correlations between interpretation and adversaries. Finally, we discuss the challenges and future directions along tackling adversary issues with interpretation.
Reliable evaluation of adversarial defenses is a challenging task, currently limited to an expert who manually crafts attacks that exploit the defenses inner workings, or to approaches based on ensemble of fixed attacks, none of which may be effective for the specific defense at hand. Our key observation is that custom attacks are composed from a set of reusable building blocks, such as fine-tuning relevant attack parameters, network transformations, and custom loss functions. Based on this observation, we present an extensible framework that defines a search space over these reusable building blocks and automatically discovers an effective attack on a given model with an unknown defense by searching over suitable combinations of these blocks. We evaluated our framework on 23 adversarial defenses and showed it outperforms AutoAttack, the current state-of-the-art tool for reliable evaluation of adversarial defenses: our discovered attacks are either stronger, producing 3.0%-50.8% additional adversarial examples (10 cases), or are typically 2x faster while enjoying similar adversarial robustness (13 cases).
Adversarial attacks optimize against models to defeat defenses. Existing defenses are static, and stay the same once trained, even while attacks change. We argue that models should fight back, and optimize their defenses against attacks at test time. We propose dynamic defenses, to adapt the model and input during testing, by defensive entropy minimization (dent). Dent alters testing, but not training, for compatibility with existing models and train-time defenses. Dent improves the robustness of adversarially-trained defenses and nominally-trained models against white-box, black-box, and adaptive attacks on CIFAR-10/100 and ImageNet. In particular, dent boosts state-of-the-art defenses by 20+ points absolute against AutoAttack on CIFAR-10 at $epsilon_infty$ = 8/255.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
