Explorations in Texture Learning

In this work, we investigate \textit{texture learning}: the identification of textures learned by object classification models, and the extent to which they rely on these textures. We build texture-object associations that uncover new insights about the relationships between texture and object classes in CNNs and find three classes of results: associations that are strong and expected, strong and not expected, and expected but not present. Our analysis demonstrates that investigations in texture learning enable new methods for interpretability and have the potential to uncover unexpected biases.

The Space of Adversarial Strategies

Adversarial examples, inputs designed to induce worst-case behavior in machine learning models, have been extensively studied over the past decade. Yet, our understanding of this phenomenon stems from a rather fragmented pool of knowledge; at present, there are a handful of attacks, each with disparate assumptions in threat models and incomparable definitions of optimality. In this paper, we propose a systematic approach to characterize worst-case (i.e., optimal) adversaries. We first introduce an extensible decomposition of attacks in adversarial machine learning by atomizing attack components into surfaces and travelers. With our decomposition, we enumerate over components to create 576 attacks (568 of which were previously unexplored). Next, we propose the Pareto Ensemble Attack (PEA): a theoretical attack that upper-bounds attack performance. With our new attacks, we measure performance relative to the PEA on: both robust and non-robust models, seven datasets, and three extended lp-based threat models incorporating compute costs, formalizing the Space of Adversarial Strategies. From our evaluation we find that attack performance to be highly contextual: the domain, model robustness, and threat model can have a profound influence on attack efficacy. Our investigation suggests that future studies measuring the security of machine learning should: (1) be contextualized to the domain & threat models, and (2) go beyond the handful of known attacks used today.

On the Robustness of Domain Constraints

Machine learning is vulnerable to adversarial examples-inputs designed to cause models to perform poorly. However, it is unclear if adversarial examples represent realistic inputs in the modeled domains. Diverse domains such as networks and phishing have domain constraints-complex relationships between features that an adversary must satisfy for an attack to be realized (in addition to any adversary-specific goals). In this paper, we explore how domain constraints limit adversarial capabilities and how adversaries can adapt their strategies to create realistic (constraint-compliant) examples. In this, we develop techniques to learn domain constraints from data, and show how the learned constraints can be integrated into the adversarial crafting process. We evaluate the efficacy of our approach in network intrusion and phishing datasets and find: (1) up to 82% of adversarial examples produced by state-of-the-art crafting algorithms violate domain constraints, (2) domain constraints are robust to adversarial examples; enforcing constraints yields an increase in model accuracy by up to 34%. We observe not only that adversaries must alter inputs to satisfy domain constraints, but that these constraints make the generation of valid adversarial examples far more challenging.