REVIEW 2 cited by
The Dimpled Manifold Model of Adversarial Examples in Machine Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The extreme fragility of deep neural networks, when presented with tiny perturbations in their inputs, was independently discovered by several research groups in 2013. However, despite enormous effort, these adversarial examples remained a counterintuitive phenomenon with no simple testable explanation. In this paper, we introduce a new conceptual framework for how the decision boundary between classes evolves during training, which we call the {\em Dimpled Manifold Model}. In particular, we demonstrate that training is divided into two distinct phases. The first phase is a (typically fast) clinging process in which the initially randomly oriented decision boundary gets very close to the low dimensional image manifold, which contains all the training examples. Next, there is a (typically slow) dimpling phase which creates shallow bulges in the decision boundary that move it to the correct side of the training examples. This framework provides a simple explanation for why adversarial examples exist, why their perturbations have such tiny norms, and why they look like random noise rather than like the target class. This explanation is also used to show that a network that was adversarially trained with incorrectly labeled images might still correctly classify most test images, and to show that the main effect of adversarial training is just to deepen the generated dimples in the decision boundary. Finally, we discuss and demonstrate the very different properties of on-manifold and off-manifold adversarial perturbations. We describe the results of numerous experiments which strongly support this new model, using both low dimensional synthetic datasets and high dimensional natural datasets.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Superposition
The paper argues that adversarial examples arise from superposition, and shows that changing superposition changes robustness and vice versa in toy models and ResNet18.
-
Generalizability vs. Counterfactual Explainability Trade-Off
A geometric probability called epsilon-VCP rises as models overfit, and the paper offers it as a label-free overfitting diagnostic.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.