Paper detail

MEAD: A Multi-Armed Approach for Evaluation of Adversarial Examples Detectors

Detection of adversarial examples has been a hot topic in the last years due to its importance for safely deploying machine learning algorithms in critical applications. However, the detection methods are generally validated by assuming a single implicitly known attack strategy, which does not necessarily account for real-life threats. Indeed, this can lead to an overoptimistic assessment of the detectors' performance and may induce some bias in the comparison between competing detection schemes. We propose a novel multi-armed framework, called MEAD, for evaluating detectors based on several attack strategies to overcome this limitation. Among them, we make use of three new objectives to generate attacks. The proposed performance metric is based on the worst-case scenario: detection is successful if and only if all different attacks are correctly recognized. Empirically, we show the effectiveness of our approach. Moreover, the poor performance obtained for state-of-the-art detectors opens a new exciting line of research.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.