Inconsistency with your results of Figure 4&5 in the paper about magnet HOT 3 CLOSED

Hi @zoujx96

For 1: please read Carlini's paper and MagNet paper again and make sure that you understand: in whitebox attack model, Carlini's attack gets 100% attack success rate on MNIST and CIFAR-10 models even with zero confidence. Therefore, the green line should be flat and remain near zero everywhere. If this is not the case in your experiment, your attack is flawed somehow.

For 2: this doesn't make any sense to me so I won't try to explain.

I don't know how you generated your adversarial examples so I can't say for sure. But here's my guess: in Nick's attack code, the generated attack image has pixel value range of [-0.5, 0.5], but in my defense code, the expected input image has pixel value range of [0, 1]. This mismatch can cause confusion. Please check if this is the cause and report here.

Thanks.

from magnet.

Hi @Trevillie
Thank you very much for your reply! I suppose the issue lies in the range of pixel values. I see in Carlini's code the pixel values are in the range of (-0.5,0.5), so I want to make sure. Do you generate Carlini's attack samples using CIFAR10 dataset with (0,1) pixel values, or you generate using (-0.5,0.5) pixel values and then change the adversarial samples to (0,1) pixel values by adding 0.5?

from magnet.

@zoujx96 On (0,1) dataset directly.

from magnet.