Adversarial / Foundations
verifiedAdversarial Example
Change an image by an amount no person can see, and a classifier that was right becomes confidently wrong. The perturbation is not noise and not a corner case — it can be computed for almost any input in a fraction of a second, and it often transfers to models trained separately on different data.
The transferability is the part that matters operationally: an attacker who cannot see your weights can attack a substitute model and expect a usable fraction of the attacks to carry over. The uncomfortable explanation is that these perturbations follow features that are genuinely predictive and genuinely imperceptible — the model is not hallucinating, it is using signal a person cannot see and would not have chosen.
Find δ minimising ‖δ‖ subject to f(x + δ) ≠ f(x), usually relaxed to maximising the loss inside a ball ‖δ‖ sub p ≤ ε. Linearity is enough to explain it: with a gradient g, a step of ε·sign(g) moves the logit by ε·‖g‖ sub 1 , which grows with input dimension — so high-dimensional inputs are attackable at a per-pixel budget that stays invisible.
attack-budget holds 25% of the budget; rest holds the remaining 75%.
Perturbation the attacker is allowed against the signal already in the image, in equal units. Drag the budget up to watch the attack overtake the picture — long before that point it has already changed the answer.
Reviewed by opendroid · 2026-08-18
- arXiv:1312.6199 — Intriguing properties of neural networks
- arXiv:1412.6572 — Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples
- arXiv:1905.02175 — Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Features