More Like this

1. Modeling Biological Immunity to Adversarial Examples

   https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00472  

   Kim, Edward ; Rego, Jocelyn ; Watkins, Yijing ; Kenyon, Garrett T. ( June 2020 , 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR))

   null (Ed.)

   While deep learning continues to permeate through all fields of signal processing and machine learning, a critical exploit in these frameworks exists and remains unsolved. These exploits, or adversarial examples, are a type of signal attack that can change the output class of a classifier by perturbing the stimulus signal by an imperceptible amount. The attack takes advantage of statistical irregularities within the training data, where the added perturbations can move the image across deep learning decision boundaries. What is even more alarming is the transferability of these attacks to different deep learning models and architectures. This means a successful attack on one model has adversarial effects on other, unrelated models. In a general sense, adversarial attack through perturbations is not a machine learning vulnerability. Human and biological vision can also be fooled by various methods, i.e. mixing high and low frequency images together, by altering semantically related signals, or by sufficiently distorting the input signal. However, the amount and magnitude of such a distortion required to alter biological perception is at a much larger scale. In this work, we explored this gap through the lens of biology and neuroscience in order to understand the robustness exhibited in human perception. Our experiments show that by leveraging sparsity and modeling the biological mechanisms at a cellular level, we are able to mitigate the effect of adversarial alterations to the signal that have no perceptible meaning. Furthermore, we present and illustrate the effects of top-down functional processes that contribute to the inherent immunity in human perception in the context of exploiting these properties to make a more robust machine vision system. 

   more » « less
2. TSS: Transformation-Specific Smoothing for Robustness Certification

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3460120.3485258  

   Li, Linyi ; Weber, Maurice ; Xu, Xiaojun ; Rimanic, Luka ; Kailkhura, Bhavya ; Xie, Tao ; Zhang, Ce ; Li, Bo ( November 2021 , Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS'21))

   As machine learning (ML) systems become pervasive, safeguarding their security is critical. However, recently it has been demonstrated that motivated adversaries are able to mislead ML systems by perturbing test data using semantic transformations. While there exists a rich body of research providing provable robustness guarantees for ML models against ℓp norm bounded adversarial perturbations, guarantees against semantic perturbations remain largely underexplored. In this paper, we provide TSS -- a unified framework for certifying ML robustness against general adversarial semantic transformations. First, depending on the properties of each transformation, we divide common transformations into two categories, namely resolvable (e.g., Gaussian blur) and differentially resolvable (e.g., rotation) transformations. For the former, we propose transformation-specific randomized smoothing strategies and obtain strong robustness certification. The latter category covers transformations that involve interpolation errors, and we propose a novel approach based on stratified sampling to certify the robustness. Our framework TSS leverages these certification strategies and combines with consistency-enhanced training to provide rigorous certification of robustness. We conduct extensive experiments on over ten types of challenging semantic transformations and show that TSS significantly outperforms the state of the art. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, TSS is the first approach that achieves nontrivial certified robustness on the large-scale ImageNet dataset. For instance, our framework achieves 30.4% certified robust accuracy against rotation attack (within ±30∘) on ImageNet. Moreover, to consider a broader range of transformations, we show TSS is also robust against adaptive attacks and unforeseen image corruptions such as CIFAR-10-C and ImageNet-C. 

   more » « less
3. Detecting Adversarial Examples Using Data Manifolds

   Jha, Susmit ; Jang, Uyeong ; Jha, Somesh ; Jalaian, Brian ( January 2018 , MILCOM IEEE Military Communications Conference)

   Models produced by machine learning, particularly deep neural networks, are state-of-the-art for many machine learning tasks and demonstrate very high prediction accuracy. Unfortunately, these models are also very brittle and vulnerable to specially crafted adversarial examples. Recent results have shown that accuracy of these models can be reduced from close to hundred percent to below 5\% using adversarial examples. This brittleness of deep neural networks makes it challenging to deploy these learning models in security-critical areas where adversarial activity is expected, and cannot be ignored. A number of methods have been recently proposed to craft more effective and generalizable attacks on neural networks along with competing efforts to improve robustness of these learning models. But the current approaches to make machine learning techniques more resilient fall short of their goal. Further, the succession of new adversarial attacks against proposed methods to increase neural network robustness raises doubts about a foolproof approach to robustify machine learning models against all possible adversarial attacks. In this paper, we consider the problem of detecting adversarial examples. This would help identify when the learning models cannot be trusted without attempting to repair the models or make them robust to adversarial attacks. This goal of finding limitations of the learning model presents a more tractable approach to protecting against adversarial attacks. Our approach is based on identifying a low dimensional manifold in which the training samples lie, and then using the distance of a new observation from this manifold to identify whether this data point is adversarial or not. Our empirical study demonstrates that adversarial examples not only lie farther away from the data manifold, but this distance from manifold of the adversarial examples increases with the attack confidence. Thus, adversarial examples that are likely to result into incorrect prediction by the machine learning model is also easier to detect by our approach. This is a first step towards formulating a novel approach based on computational geometry that can identify the limiting boundaries of a machine learning model, and detect adversarial attacks. 

   more » « less
4. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
5. Attack of the Tails: Yes, You Really Can Backdoor Federated Learning

   Wang, Hongyi ; Sreenivasan, Kartik ; Rajput, Shashank ; Vishwakarma, Harit ; Agarwal, Saurabh ; Sohn, Jy-yong ; Lee, Kangwook ; Papailiopoulos, Dimitris ( January 2020 , Advances in neural information processing systems)

   Due to its decentralized nature, Federated Learning (FL) lends itself to adversarial attacks in the form of backdoors during training. The goal of a backdoor is to corrupt the performance of the trained model on specific sub-tasks (e.g., by classifying green cars as frogs). A range of FL backdoor attacks have been introduced in the literature, but also methods to defend against them, and it is currently an open question whether FL systems can be tailored to be robust against backdoors. In this work, we provide evidence to the contrary. We first establish that, in the general case, robustness to backdoors implies model robustness to adversarial examples, a major open problem in itself. Furthermore, detecting the presence of a backdoor in a FL model is unlikely assuming first order oracles or polynomial time. We couple our theoretical results with a new family of backdoor attacks, which we refer to as edge-case backdoors. An edge-case backdoor forces a model to misclassify on seemingly easy inputs that are however unlikely to be part of the training, or test data, i.e., they live on the tail of the input distribution. We explain how these edge-case backdoors can lead to unsavory failures and may have serious repercussions on fairness, and exhibit that with careful tuning at the side of the adversary, one can insert them across a range of machine learning tasks (e.g., image classification, OCR, text prediction, sentiment analysis). 

   more » « less