Classifiers fail to classify correctly input images that have been purposefully and imperceptibly perturbed to cause misclassification. This susceptability has been shown to be consistent across classifiers, regardless of their type, architecture or parameters. Common defenses against adversarial attacks modify the classifer boundary by training on additional adversarial examples created in various ways. In this paper, we introduce AutoGAN, which counters adversarial attacks by enhancing the lower-dimensional manifold defined by the training data and by projecting perturbed data points onto it. AutoGAN mitigates the need for knowing the attack type and magnitude as well as the need for having adversarial samples of the attack. Our approach uses a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) with an autoencoder generator and a discriminator that also serves as a classifier. We test AutoGAN against adversarial samples generated with state-of-the-art Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) as well as samples generated with random Gaussian noise, both using the MNIST dataset. For different magnitudes of perturbation in training and testing, AutoGAN can surpass the accuracy of FGSM method by up to 25 points on samples perturbed using FGSM. Without an augmented training dataset, AutoGAN achieves an accuracy of 89 compared to 1 achieved by FGSM method on FGSM testing adversarial samples.
We evaluate AutoGAN against adversarial samples in adversarial directions generated with the FGSM method @cite_28 . To further assess that the scope of AutoGAN is not only limited to adversarial directions, we evaluate AutoGAN against adversarial attacks in random directions created by adding random Gaussian noise to each pixel.
@cite_28
1945616565
Several machine learning models, including neural networks, consistently misclassify adversarial examples---inputs formed by applying small but intentionally worst-case perturbations to examples from the dataset, such that the perturbed input results in the model outputting an incorrect answer with high confidence. Early attempts at explaining this phenomenon focused on nonlinearity and overfitting. We argue instead that the primary cause of neural networks' vulnerability to adversarial perturbation is their linear nature. This explanation is supported by new quantitative results while giving the first explanation of the most intriguing fact about them: their generalization across architectures and training sets. Moreover, this view yields a simple and fast method of generating adversarial examples. Using this approach to provide examples for adversarial training, we reduce the test set error of a maxout network on the MNIST dataset.