Optimizing stealthiness in universal adversarial perturbations via class-selective and perceptual similarity metrics


Abstract

Universal Adversarial Perturbations (UAPs) represent a substantial threat to deep learning models, causing widespread misclassification across multiple inputs with a single perturbation. While traditional methods primarily optimize for perturbation strength, they often overlook stealthiness, making the attacks easily detectable. This paper introduces Stealthy-UAP, a novel method designed to enhance the stealthiness of UAPs through two key mechanisms: class-selective attack strategies and perceptual similarity metrics. The class-selective strategy enhances the stealthiness and effectiveness of adversarial attacks by selectively choosing specific classes as target classes, causing them to be misclassified while preserving the original predictions for non-target classes. Perceptual similarity metrics leverage high-level semantic information from pre-trained convolutional neural networks to generate perturbations that align closely with human visual perception, making them imperceptible to human observers while maintaining high attack success rates. Experimental results demonstrate that Stealthy-UAP significantly improves the stealthiness and effectiveness of UAPs compared to existing methods, providing a robust framework for generating imperceptible yet effective adversarial perturbations.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].