BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Blerta Lindqvist

Blerta Lindqvist appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Machine LearningComputer Science and Game Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
2topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Target Training Does Adversarial Training Without Adversarial Samples

Neural network classifiers are vulnerable to misclassification of adversarial samples, for which the current best defense trains classifiers with adversarial samples. However, adversarial samples are not optimal for steering attack convergence, based on the minimization at the core of adversarial attacks. The minimization perturbation term can be minimized towards $0$ by replacing adversarial samples in training with duplicated original samples, labeled differently only for training. Using only original samples, Target Training eliminates the need to generate adversarial samples for training against all attacks that minimize perturbation. In low-capacity classifiers and without using adversarial samples, Target Training exceeds both default CIFAR10 accuracy ($84.3$%) and current best defense accuracy (below $25$%) with $84.8$% against CW-L$_2$($κ=0$) attack, and $86.6$% against DeepFool. Using adversarial samples against attacks that do not minimize perturbation, Target Training exceeds current best defense ($69.1$%) with $76.4$% against CW-L$_2$($κ=40$) in CIFAR10.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Minimax Defense against Gradient-based Adversarial Attacks

State-of-the-art adversarial attacks are aimed at neural network classifiers. By default, neural networks use gradient descent to minimize their loss function. The gradient of a classifier's loss function is used by gradient-based adversarial attacks to generate adversarially perturbed images. We pose the question whether another type of optimization could give neural network classifiers an edge. Here, we introduce a novel approach that uses minimax optimization to foil gradient-based adversarial attacks. Our minimax classifier is the discriminator of a generative adversarial network (GAN) that plays a minimax game with the GAN generator. In addition, our GAN generator projects all points onto a manifold that is different from the original manifold since the original manifold might be the cause of adversarial attacks. To measure the performance of our minimax defense, we use adversarial attacks - Carlini Wagner (CW), DeepFool, Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) - on three datasets: MNIST, CIFAR-10 and German Traffic Sign (TRAFFIC). Against CW attacks, our minimax defense achieves 98.07% (MNIST-default 98.93%), 73.90% (CIFAR-10-default 83.14%) and 94.54% (TRAFFIC-default 96.97%). Against DeepFool attacks, our minimax defense achieves 98.87% (MNIST), 76.61% (CIFAR-10) and 94.57% (TRAFFIC). Against FGSM attacks, we achieve 97.01% (MNIST), 76.79% (CIFAR-10) and 81.41% (TRAFFIC). Our Minimax adversarial approach presents a significant shift in defense strategy for neural network classifiers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Tricking Adversarial Attacks To Fail

Recent adversarial defense approaches have failed. Untargeted gradient-based attacks cause classifiers to choose any wrong class. Our novel white-box defense tricks untargeted attacks into becoming attacks targeted at designated target classes. From these target classes, we can derive the real classes. Our Target Training defense tricks the minimization at the core of untargeted, gradient-based adversarial attacks: minimize the sum of (1) perturbation and (2) classifier adversarial loss. Target Training changes the classifier minimally, and trains it with additional duplicated points (at 0 distance) labeled with designated classes. These differently-labeled duplicated samples minimize both terms (1) and (2) of the minimization, steering attack convergence to samples of designated classes, from which correct classification is derived. Importantly, Target Training eliminates the need to know the attack and the overhead of generating adversarial samples of attacks that minimize perturbations. We obtain an 86.2% accuracy for CW-L2 (confidence=0) in CIFAR10, exceeding even unsecured classifier accuracy on non-adversarial samples. Target Training presents a fundamental change in adversarial defense strategy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access