Jianjun Zhao

Yang Hou, Qing Guo, Yihao Huang et al.

In recent years, as various realistic face forgery techniques known as DeepFake improves by leaps and bounds,more and more DeepFake detection techniques have been proposed. These methods typically rely on detecting statistical differences between natural (i.e., real) and DeepFakegenerated images in both spatial and frequency domains. In this work, we propose to explicitly minimize the statistical differences to evade state-of-the-art DeepFake detectors. To this end, we propose a statistical consistency attack (StatAttack) against DeepFake detectors, which contains two main parts. First, we select several statistical-sensitive natural degradations (i.e., exposure, blur, and noise) and add them to the fake images in an adversarial way. Second, we find that the statistical differences between natural and DeepFake images are positively associated with the distribution shifting between the two kinds of images, and we propose to use a distribution-aware loss to guide the optimization of different degradations. As a result, the feature distributions of generated adversarial examples is close to the natural images.Furthermore, we extend the StatAttack to a more powerful version, MStatAttack, where we extend the single-layer degradation to multi-layer degradations sequentially and use the loss to tune the combination weights jointly. Comprehensive experimental results on four spatial-based detectors and two frequency-based detectors with four datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed attack method in both white-box and black-box settings.

Kota Fukuda, Guanqin Zhang, Zhenya Zhang et al.

Formal verification is a rigorous approach that can provably ensure the quality of neural networks, and to date, Branch and Bound (BaB) is the state-of-the-art that performs verification by splitting the problem as needed and applying off-the-shelf verifiers to sub-problems for improved performance. However, existing BaB may not be efficient, due to its naive way of exploring the space of sub-problems that ignores the \emph{importance} of different sub-problems. To bridge this gap, we first introduce a notion of ``importance'' that reflects how likely a counterexample can be found with a sub-problem, and then we devise a novel verification approach, called ABONN, that explores the sub-problem space of BaB adaptively, in a Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) style. The exploration is guided by the ``importance'' of different sub-problems, so it favors the sub-problems that are more likely to find counterexamples. As soon as it finds a counterexample, it can immediately terminate; even though it cannot find, after visiting all the sub-problems, it can still manage to verify the problem. We evaluate ABONN with 552 verification problems from commonly-used datasets and neural network models, and compare it with the state-of-the-art verifiers as baseline approaches. Experimental evaluation shows that ABONN demonstrates speedups of up to $15.2\times$ on MNIST and $24.7\times$ on CIFAR-10. We further study the influences of hyperparameters to the performance of ABONN, and the effectiveness of our adaptive tree exploration.

Guanqin Zhang, Kota Fukuda, Zhenya Zhang et al.

The vulnerability of neural networks to adversarial perturbations has necessitated formal verification techniques that can rigorously certify the quality of neural networks. As the state-of-the-art, branch and bound (BaB) is a "divide-and-conquer" strategy that applies off-the-shelf verifiers to sub-problems for which they perform better. While BaB can identify the sub-problems that are necessary to be split, it explores the space of these sub-problems in a naive "first-come-first-serve" manner, thereby suffering from an issue of inefficiency to reach a verification conclusion. To bridge this gap, we introduce an order over different sub-problems produced by BaB, concerning with their different likelihoods of containing counterexamples. Based on this order, we propose a novel verification framework Oliva that explores the sub-problem space by prioritizing those sub-problems that are more likely to find counterexamples, in order to efficiently reach the conclusion of the verification. Even if no counterexample can be found in any sub-problem, it only changes the order of visiting different sub-problem and so will not lead to a performance degradation. Specifically, Oliva has two variants, including $Oliva^{GR}$, a greedy strategy that always prioritizes the sub-problems that are more likely to find counterexamples, and $Oliva^{SA}$, a balanced strategy inspired by simulated annealing that gradually shifts from exploration to exploitation to locate the globally optimal sub-problems. We experimentally evaluate the performance of Oliva on 690 verification problems spanning over 5 models with datasets MNIST and CIFAR10. Compared to the state-of-the-art approaches, we demonstrate the speedup of Oliva for up to 25X in MNIST, and up to 80X in CIFAR10.