Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have been shown to be vulnerable against adversarial examples, which are data points cleverly constructed to fool the classifier. Such attacks can be devastating in practice, especially as DNNs are being applied to ever increasing critical tasks like image recognition in autonomous driving. In this paper, we introduce a new perspective on the problem. We do so by first defining robustness of a classifier to adversarial exploitation. Next, we show that the problem of adversarial example generation can be posed as learning problem. We also categorize attacks in literature into high and low perturbation attacks; well-known attacks like fast-gradient sign method (FGSM) and our attack produce higher perturbation adversarial examples while the more potent but computationally inefficient Carlini-Wagner (CW) attack is low perturbation. Next, we show that the dual approach of the attack learning problem can be used as a defensive technique that is effective against high perturbation attacks. Finally, we show that a classifier masking method achieved by adding noise to the a neural network's logit output protects against low distortion attacks such as the CW attack. We also show that both our learning and masking defense can work simultaneously to protect against multiple attacks. We demonstrate the efficacy of our techniques by experimenting with the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets.
@cite_5: Due to deep cascades of nonlinear units, deep neural networks (DNNs) can automatically learn non-local generalization priors from data and have achieved high performance in various applications. However, such properties have also opened a door for adversaries to generate the so-called adversarial examples to fool DNNs. Specifically, adversaries can inject small perturbations to the input data and therefore decrease the performance of deep neural networks significantly. Even worse, these adversarial examples have the transferability to attack a black-box model based on finite queries without knowledge of the target model. Therefore, we aim to empirically compare different defensive strategies against various adversary models and analyze the cross-model efficiency for these robust learners. We conclude that the adversarial retraining framework also has the transferability, which can defend adversarial examples without requiring prior knowledge of the adversary models. We compare the general adversarial retraining framework with the state-of-the-art robust deep neural networks, such as distillation, autoencoder stacked with classifier (AEC), and our improved version, IAEC, to evaluate their robustness as well as the vulnerability in terms of the distortion required to mislead the learner. Our experimental results show that the adversarial retraining framework can defend most of the adversarial examples notably and consistently without adding additional vulnerabilities or performance penalty to the original model.
@cite_8: Multiple different approaches of generating adversarial examples have been proposed to attack deep neural networks. These approaches involve either directly computing gradients with respect to the image pixels, or directly solving an optimization on the image pixels. In this work, we present a fundamentally new method for generating adversarial examples that is fast to execute and provides exceptional diversity of output. We efficiently train feed-forward neural networks in a self-supervised manner to generate adversarial examples against a target network or set of networks. We call such a network an Adversarial Transformation Network (ATN). ATNs are trained to generate adversarial examples that minimally modify the classifier's outputs given the original input, while constraining the new classification to match an adversarial target class. We present methods to train ATNs and analyze their effectiveness targeting a variety of MNIST classifiers as well as the latest state-of-the-art ImageNet classifier Inception ResNet v2.
Lastly, two concurrent unpublished drafts (available online) have proposed an attack @cite_8 similar to ALN and a defense @cite_5 apparently similar to DLN. The difference for the attack work is in using the class label vs classifier output in @math term for the attack. For the defense work, we differ as we show how DLN technique extends to multiple attacks and can be repeatedly used in an attack-defense competition. Moreover, unlike these drafts, we provide another defense technique NAC that works against CW, define robustness and show that our defense techniques approximately aims to achieve our definition of robustness. Further, our formal reasoning reveals the underlying nature of attacks and defenses.