Paul Miller

Jeonghwan Park, Paul Miller, Niall McLaughlin

We consider the hard label based black box adversarial attack setting which solely observes predicted classes from the target model. Most of the attack methods in this setting suffer from impractical number of queries required to achieve a successful attack. One approach to tackle this drawback is utilising the adversarial transferability between white box surrogate models and black box target model. However, the majority of the methods adopting this approach are soft label based to take the full advantage of zeroth order optimisation. Unlike mainstream methods, we propose a new practical setting of hard label based attack with an optimisation process guided by a pretrained surrogate model. Experiments show the proposed method significantly improves the query efficiency of the hard label based black-box attack across various target model architectures. We find the proposed method achieves approximately 5 times higher attack success rate compared to the benchmarks, especially at the small query budgets as 100 and 250.

Jianbing Ma, Weiru Liu, Paul Miller

Situation calculus has been applied widely in artificial intelligence to model and reason about actions and changes in dynamic systems. Since actions carried out by agents will cause constant changes of the agents' beliefs, how to manage these changes is a very important issue. Shapiro et al. [22] is one of the studies that considered this issue. However, in this framework, the problem of noisy sensing, which often presents in real-world applications, is not considered. As a consequence, noisy sensing actions in this framework will lead to an agent facing inconsistent situation and subsequently the agent cannot proceed further. In this paper, we investigate how noisy sensing actions can be handled in iterated belief change within the situation calculus formalism. We extend the framework proposed in [22] with the capability of managing noisy sensings. We demonstrate that an agent can still detect the actual situation when the ratio of noisy sensing actions vs. accurate sensing actions is limited. We prove that our framework subsumes the iterated belief change strategy in [22] when all sensing actions are accurate. Furthermore, we prove that our framework can adequately handle belief introspection, mistaken beliefs, belief revision and belief update even with noisy sensing, as done in [22] with accurate sensing actions only.