Threat of Adversarial Attacks on Deep Learning in Computer Vision: A Survey
Add this Pith Number to your LaTeX paper
What is a Pith Number?\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{OPRC2LAG}
Prints a linked pith:OPRC2LAG badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more
read the original abstract
Deep learning is at the heart of the current rise of machine learning and artificial intelligence. In the field of Computer Vision, it has become the workhorse for applications ranging from self-driving cars to surveillance and security. Whereas deep neural networks have demonstrated phenomenal success (often beyond human capabilities) in solving complex problems, recent studies show that they are vulnerable to adversarial attacks in the form of subtle perturbations to inputs that lead a model to predict incorrect outputs. For images, such perturbations are often too small to be perceptible, yet they completely fool the deep learning models. Adversarial attacks pose a serious threat to the success of deep learning in practice. This fact has lead to a large influx of contributions in this direction. This article presents the first comprehensive survey on adversarial attacks on deep learning in Computer Vision. We review the works that design adversarial attacks, analyze the existence of such attacks and propose defenses against them. To emphasize that adversarial attacks are possible in practical conditions, we separately review the contributions that evaluate adversarial attacks in the real-world scenarios. Finally, we draw on the literature to provide a broader outlook of the research direction.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
AuraMask: An Extensible Pipeline for Developing Aesthetic Anti-Facial Recognition Image Filters
AuraMask produces 40 aesthetic anti-facial recognition filters that match or exceed prior adversarial effectiveness and achieve significantly higher user acceptance in a 630-person study.
-
Mobile GUI Agents under Real-world Threats: Are We There Yet?
Introduces an app-content instrumentation framework and benchmark showing that examined GUI agents suffer 42.0% and 36.1% average misleading rates from third-party content in dynamic and static tests respectively.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.