<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Intriguing properties of neural
networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>DPATCH: An Adversarial Patch Attack on Object Detectors</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Xin Liu</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Huanrui Yang</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ziwei Liu</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Linghao Song</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Hai Li</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Yiran Chen</string-name>
          <email>yiran.cheng@duke.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Duke University</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>1312</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>6199</volume>
      <abstract>
        <p>Object detectors have emerged as an indispensable module in modern computer vision systems. In this work, we propose DPATCH- a black-box adversarial-patch-based attack towards mainstream object detectors (i.e. Faster R-CNN and YOLO). Unlike the original adversarial patch that only manipulates image-level classifier, our DPATCH simultaneously attacks the bounding box regression and object classification so as to disable their predictions. Compared to prior works, DPATCH has several appealing properties: (1) DPATCH can perform both untargeted and targeted effective attacks, degrading the mAP of Faster R-CNN and YOLO from 75.10% and 65.7% down to below 1%, respectively; (2) DPATCH is small in size and its attacking effect is location-independent, making it very practical to implement real-world attacks; (3) DPATCH demonstrates great transferability among different detectors as well as training datasets. For example, DPATCH that is trained on Faster R-CNN can effectively attack YOLO, and vice versa. Extensive evaluations imply that DPATCH can perform effective attacks under black-box setup, i.e., even without the knowledge of the attacked network's architectures and parameters. Successful realization of DPATCH also illustrates the intrinsic vulnerability of the modern detector architectures to such patch-based adversarial attacks.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        As deep learning systems achieve excellent performance
in many cognitive applications, their security and
robustness issues are also raised as important concerns recently.
Among them, object detector is an indispensable module in
modern computer vision systems, and widely deployed in
surveillance
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Liu et al. 2015)</xref>
        systems and autonomous
vehicles (Girshick 2015). It becomes an increasing vital task
to comprehensively study their vulnerability to adversarial
attacks (Papernot et al.
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2017; Liao et al. 2017</xref>
        ).
      </p>
      <p>Many existing adversarial attacks focus on learning
fullimage additive noise, where the predictions of deep learning
system are manipulated by injecting small perturbations into
the input samples. Though the injected noises are small and
sometimes even invisible to human eyes, these methods need
to manipulate the whole image and become less impractical
for the real-world physical attacks.</p>
      <p>Recently, adversarial patch (Brown et al. 2017) is
introduced as an practical approach of real-world attacks. The
ad</p>
      <sec id="sec-1-1">
        <title>Copyright held by author(s).</title>
        <p>versarial patch misleads a CNN classifier to predict any
object that coupled with the pasted patch to a targeted class,
regardless of the object’s scale, position, and direction. The
effectiveness of such adversarial attacks has been also proven
in a black-box setup where the structure and parameters of
the attacked neural networks are unknown to the attacker.</p>
        <p>
          However, we found that the original adversarial patch
technique is not able to fool object detectors such as Faster
R-CNN
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">(Ren et al. 2015)</xref>
          and YOLO
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref15 ref3">(Redmon and Farhadi
2016)</xref>
          , as shown in Fig.1. The reason resides at the
detector architectures: Modern object detectors first locate the
objects with different sizes at different locations on the image
and then perform classification. Hence, the number of
targets that need to be attacked in this case is much larger than
that in a pure classification application
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">(Avishek and Parham
2018)</xref>
          . For example, Faster R-CNN generates approximately
20k regions for classification, which is far beyond an
original adversarial patch can effectively attack.
        </p>
        <p>Our key insight is that both bounding box regression
and object classification need to be simultaneously attacked.
Based on this observation, we propose DPATCH – an
iteratively trained adversarial patch that effectively attacks
mainstream object detectors. A small DPATCH, e.g., a 40-by-40
pixel region, can perform both untargeted attack and targeted
attack: In an untargeted attack, the object detector cannot
locate the correct region containing normal object; in a
targeted attack, the object detector can only detect the DPATCH
but ignore any other objects on the image.</p>
        <p>Extensive evaluations imply that DPATCH can perform
effective attacks under black-box setup, i.e., even without the
knowledge of the attacked network’s architectures and
parameters. Successful realization of DPATCH also illustrates
the intrinsic vulnerability of the modern detector
architectures to such patch-based adversarial attacks.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Related Work</title>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Attacking Deep Learning Systems. Convolutional neural</title>
        <p>
          networks (CNNs) have been proven vulnerable to so called
adversarial attack, where the classification result of the CNN
can be manipulated by adding small perturbations onto its
input examples (Christian et al. 2013; Eykholt et al.
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">2018;
Xiao et al. 2018</xref>
          ). The adversarial examples can be crafted
by gradient based algorithms such as Fast Gradient Sign
Method (FGSM) (Goodfellow et al. 2014) and Projected
Gradient Descent (PGD)
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">(Madry et al. 2017)</xref>
          or iterative
methods such as DeepFool
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref15 ref3 ref9">(Moosavi-Dezfooli, Fawzi, and
Frossard 2016)</xref>
          and Carlini-Wagner (CW) attack
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref15 ref3">(Carlini
and Wagner 2016)</xref>
          . Based on the concept of adversarial
attack, an “adversarial glasses”
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">(Sharif et al. 2016)</xref>
          was
designed to fool a face recognition system so that the system
recognizes the wearer as someone else. Most of the previous
stuides on adversarial attack are about pixel-wise additive
noise
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref12 ref15 ref15 ref3 ref3 ref9">(Goodfellow et al. 2014; Moosavi-Dezfooli, Fawzi,
and Frossard 2016; Carlini and Wagner 2016; Xiao et al.
2018)</xref>
          . However, these attacks change all the pixels of the
input image by a small amount, which tends to be not
feasible in real-world vision systems such as web cameras and
autonomous vehicles.
        </p>
        <p>Adversarial Patch. To achieve a universal attack on
realworld vision system, Google (Brown et al. 2017) recently
designed a universal, robust adversarial patch that can be
applied in real physical scene, causing a classifier to output any
targeted class (Brown et al. 2017). Based on the principle
that object detection networks are used to detecting the most
”salient” object in an image, the adversarial patch can be
trained to be more ”salient” than other objects in the scene.
Specifically, the patch is trained to optimize the expected
probability of a target class (Brown et al. 2017). During the
training process, the patch is applied to the scene at a
random position with a random scale and rotation. This process
enables the patch to be robust against shifting, scaling and
rotating. Finally, the object in the scene will be detected as a
targeted class of the patch.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Proposed Approach</title>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Revisit Modern Detectors</title>
        <p>Faster R-CNN. As mentioned before, Faster R-CNN is a
typical two-stage detector. The first stage is to propose
regions through a deep fully convolutional network, while the
second stage is the Fast R-CNN detector that uses the
proposed regions.</p>
        <p>Region Proposal Network After extracting features by
convolutional layers, Faster R-CNN uses Region Proposal
Network(RPN) to generate the region proposals that the
object probably lies in. This Region Proposal Network
takes as input an n n spatial window (3 3
window as default) to slide over the last shared convolutional
layer. These proposed regions generated by RPN will be
mapped to the previous feature map for object
classification later on.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Anchors Generation and Region of Interest Faster R</title>
        <p>CNN uses a 3 3 window to slide over the last shared
convolutional feature map. An anchor is centered at the
sliding window. It generates 9 anchor boxes at each
sliding position associated with 3 scales and 3 aspect ratios.
These anchor boxes are considered as the potential
proposal. When evaluating, Faster R-CNN uses a cls layer,
which outputs 2k scores to estimate probability of object
or not for each potential proposal. If the cls score is
comparatively high, the potential proposal will be considered
as the Region of Interest(RoI) where an object exist.
Otherwise the proposal will be ignored.</p>
        <p>In order to attack the 2-stage detector like Faster R-CNN,
it is necessary to invalidate the generation of correct
region proposal. Our purpose is to make the region where
the DPATCH exists as the only valid RoI, while other
potential proposal should be considered not to own an object
and thus, ignored.</p>
        <p>YOLO. YOLO is introduced as a unified model for object
detection. It reframes object detection as a single regression
problem, straight from image pixels to bounding box
coordinates and class probabilities. YOLO has great advantages
of fast detection and high mAP.</p>
        <p>Unified Detection Unlike Faster R-CNN, YOLO is a
single convolutional network simultaneously predicts
multiple bounding boxes and class probabilities for those
boxes. Specifically, it divides the input image into
multiple grids, predicts bounding boxes and confidence scores
for each grid. These confident scores reflect the
confidence of the box containing an object, as well as the
accuracy of the model predicting that box. This one-stage
detection system trains on full images and directly optimizes
detection performances (Joseph et al. 2015). By such
optimized design, YOLO can run at 45 frames per second
on a Titan X GPU and also achieve more than twice the
mean average precision (mAP) of other real-time
detection systems.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>Bounding Boxes Prediction and Confidence Scores</title>
        <p>Each grid in the image predicts B bounding boxes and
confidence scores for those boxes. These confidence
scores reflect how confident that the box contains an
object and how accurate the box is. If the confidence
score is comparatively lower, that bounding box predicted
by the grid will not be considered to contain a real object.
Similarly, the grids where the DPATCH exists should
be considered to have an object when attacking YOLO,
while other grids should be ignored. That is, the grid
containing a DPATCH has higher confidence score than
others with normal objects.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>DPATCH Formulation</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-5">
        <title>Original Adversarial Patch. As introduced in the In</title>
        <p>troduction section, the adversarial patch proposed by
Google (Brown et al. 2017) is aiming for maximizing the
loss of a CNN classifier when the patch is applied to an
input image. To make the patch effective on all the inputs and
under potential transformations in the physical world, the
patch is optimized over the expectation over random input
images, locations and transformations.</p>
        <p>P^ = arg max Ex;t;l[logP r(y^jA(P; x; l; t))] (1)</p>
        <p>P
Equation (1) gives a formal description of the training
objective of adversarial patch (Brown et al. 2017), where
A(P; x; l; t) denotes the input image produced by applying
patch P to the original image x at location l with
transformation t. Potential transformation includes scaling and
rotating the patch. P r(y^jA) is the probability of classifying
input A into the true label y^ providing the CNN classifier.
Optimizing this objective could produce a patch that can
effectively attack the classifier invariant of shifting, scaling
and rotating when applied to any input.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-6">
        <title>Adversarial Patch on Object Detectors. Inspired by the</title>
        <p>Google adversarial patch, we propose DPATCH, an
adversarial patch that works against state-of-the-art object detectors.
We design DPATCH for both untargeted and targeted attack
scenarios. For training the untargeted DPATCH, we would
like to find a patch pattern P^u that maximize the loss of the
object detector to the true class label y^ and bounding box
label B^ when the patch is applied to the input scene x
using “apply” function A, as shown in equation (2). And in a
targeted attack setting, we would like to find a patch pattern
P^t that minimize the loss to the targeted class label yt and
bounding box label Bt, as shown in equation (3).</p>
        <p>P^u = arg max Ex;s[L(A(x; s; P ); y^; B^)] (2)</p>
        <p>P
P^t = arg min Ex;s[L(A(x; s; P ); yt; Bt)] (3)</p>
        <p>P</p>
        <p>The ”apply” function A(x; s; P ) means adding patch P
onto input scene x with shift s. Here we uniformly sample
the shift s within the scene during the training to make our
patch shift invariant.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-7">
        <title>Object Detector Attacking System</title>
        <p>DPATCH Training. As shown in Fig.2, we add a randomly
initialized DPATCH pattern into the input image before
(a) a 40-by-40 untargeted
DPATCH that aims to attack
YOLO
(b) A 20-by-20 tv targeted
DPATCH that attacks Faster</p>
        <p>R-CNN
it enters the detector system, and define the ground truth
as [DPATCH x, DPATCH y, DPATCH w, DPATCH h,
target label]. DPATCH x and DPATCH y represent the location
of the DPATCH while DPATCH w and DPATCH h represent
its width and height. The bounding box label is [DPATCH x,
DPATCH y, DPATCH w, DPATCH h], similar to the ground
truth of detector’s bounding boxes. For untargeted attack,
target label is defined as 0; for targeted attack, target label
is equal to the label of targeted class. Note that the detector
system can either be Faster R-CNN or YOLO. The basic
DPATCH training process starts with a pretrained Faster
R-CNN or YOLO using Pascal VOC 2007 dataset (see
details in Experiments).</p>
        <p>DPATCH Design. Our default DPATCH is a 40-by-40 square
which is attached onto the top left corner of the image.</p>
        <p>Randomly-located DPATCH In order to analyze the
influences of different locations and to make DPATCH shift
invariant, we randomly shift the location of the DPATCH
while keeping all the pixels in the DPATCH same.
Specifically, we randomly initialize the value of shift s when
preparing DPATCH at each iteration of training, but
leaving the pixel points in it unmodified. In such a case,
each image in the dataset will be attached with the same
DPATCH but at different locations. The size of
randomlylocated DPATCH is still 40-by-40, the same as the default
setting.
(a) No DPATCH
(b) With DPATCH</p>
        <p>DPATCH of Different Targeted Classes As there exist
more than 10 object classes in the dataset used to train a
detector, e.g., 20 classes in Pascal VOC 2007, it is
intriguing to see whether mAP will fall down to a similar value if
we set the DPATCH with different labels. For example, for
targeted attack, we can set the ground truth as [0, 0, 40,
40, 15], 15 is the label index representing person. That is,
we hope that the detector can only recognize the DPATCH
and classified the DPATCH as person. In our experiment,
we randomly select four classes, bike, boat, cow and tv
from Pascal VOC 2007 and evaluate their attack effects.
DPATCH with Different Sizes DPATCH size is another
significant predetermined factor that could affect the
effectiveness of DPATCH attack. There is a tradeoff
between smaller patches that are harder to detect and
defense, while larger patches that provide better attacking
effect. In our experiment, we produce three different sizes
of DPATCH es, namely, 20-by-20, 40-by-40 and 80-by-80
to test the efficiency of their attacks. In this way, we can
better understand the relationship between DPATCH sizes
and their attacking effects, so that we can find the minimal
possible size of a patch for meaningful attack.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-8">
        <title>Transferability of DPATCH</title>
        <p>Usually it is unknown that a detector is trained by which
architecture. In such case, it makes more sense that the
DPATCH trained by YOLO can also fool Faster R-CNN, or
the DPATCH trained by Faster R-CNN with different
classifiers can fool each other. To verify this idea, we train a
DPATCH via YOLO and then add this trained DPATCH to
input image, let Faster R-CNN work as the detector. If Faster
R-CNN cannot correctly detect the object in the input image,
our DPATCH attack should be considered as transferrable
among detectors. Moreover, we train a DPATCHon COCO
and then attack a Pascal VOC trained detector. If the mAP
obviously decreased, DPATCHshould be considered as
transferrable between datasets.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Experiments</title>
      <p>Setup. We use the pretrained YOLO and Faster R-CNN
with VGG16 and ResNet101 as basic networks. Pascal VOC
2007(Everingham et al. 2007) is utilized as the dataset,
which includes 20 labelled object classes. For YOLO, the
average mAP of the 20 classes is 65.7%; for Faster R-CNN
with VGG16, the average mAP is 70.01%, for Faster
RCNN with ResNet101, the average mAP is 75.1%. Most
previous work get similar detection mAP values as ours, so
we can use these three networks as our pretrained detector
networks. When performing targeted attack, we randomly
choose one class from Pascal VOC 2007 to be our target
class. Note that the default setting of YOLO is to generate
7 7 grids in each image, however, our experiment generate
10 10 grids instead. This change does not affect the overall
detection performance of YOLO.</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Untargeted DPATCH Attack</title>
        <p>Fig.3(a) shows a 40-by-40 DPATCH that is designed as an
untargeted adversarial patch. This DPATCH just aims to
disable the detector(YOLO here), while it does not have a
specific label. That is, it is unnecessary for the detector to
accurately locate this DPATCH and to classify it as some class.
As demonstrated, the original image Fig.3(b) where the bike
should be correctly detected by YOLO, is detected wrongly
as sofa and person in Fig.4(b).</p>
        <p>After adding a untargeted DPATCH to each image in the
testing dataset, mAPs of all classes are decreased obviously.
As Table.1 and Table. 2 show, For YOLO, mAP is decreased
from 65.7% to 0. For Faster R-CNN with ResNet101, mAP
is decreased from 75.10% to 0.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>Targeted DPATCH Attack</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-3">
        <title>Fixed-sized and Fixed-located DPATCH. Fig.3(b) shows a</title>
        <p>20-by-20 DPATCH, designed to attack Faster R-CNN with
ResNet101, whose targeted class is tv. This tv DPATCH
aims to make its occupied region to be recognized as the
only valid RoI by Faster R-CNN. In Fig.5, our DPATCH
covers the left top corner of each image, though the patch
size(20-by-20) is small compared to other objects in the
scene, it successfully fools the Faster R-CNN classifier and
make it yield one result: the targeted class of the DPATCH.
Hence, the function of multi-object detection and
recognition of Faster R-CNN models is invalidated. The predicted
probability is 0.997 of the first image of Fig.5, the predicted
probability is 1.000 of the other three images. These
predictions make sense because only the DPATCH occupied region
can be recognized, other regions are ignored.</p>
        <p>Specifically, the main purpose of applying such DPATCH
is to make mean Accuracy Precision (mAP) of all classes
in the dataset drop down to a lower value. The more mAP
decreases, more successful the DPATCH attack is.</p>
        <p>Table.1 demonstrates that after approximately 200k
training iterations, this DPATCH could fool almost all the 20
classes in Pascal VOC 2007. The mAP falls down from
75.10% to 0.98%. We notice that at the start of training
period (when training iteration is less than 40k), the falling
speed of mAP is largest (see Fig.6). As the DPATCH accepts
deeper training, its attack effect will gradually be weakened.
Therefore, we can conclude that there exists a saturated point
for training DPATCH. After that saturated point, increasing
training iterations will no longer improve the attack effects.
For tv, the saturate point of training iterations is about 180k.</p>
        <p>Fig.7(a) shows another DPATCH attacking Faster R-CNN
whose targeted class is bike. When we apply this DPATCH
onto an image, all the bounding boxes determined by the
region proposals are disturbed. We observe that during the
200k training iterations of this bike DPATCH, it takes about
100k training iterations for the class loss to decrease to
approximately 0, while the bounding box loss keeps
comparatively higher after 200k training iterations. That is, the
detector cannot locate this DPATCH accurately, while its
classification result is the targeted label of DPATCH. Since our
purpose is to disable the object detector, considering the
detector(Faster R-CNN here) has already been attacked to give
wrong classification result and also the bounding box of
normal objects, this targeted DPATCH attack should be
considered successful. It is unnecessary to continue training this
DPATCH to make the detector locate it accurately.
geted class is person. After we stick it to the image, the
detector(YOLO here) can only give the classification as
person, while the horses in the image cannot be detected.
Fixed-sized and Randomly-located DPATCH. After
experimenting with the fixed-located DPATCH, our next trial is
to randomly shift the DPATCH in a scene, which means the
same DPATCH could appear in any location of the original
image. The main purpose of such practice is to evaluate the
attacking efficiency of different locations where the patch
is placed. If the attacking efficiency, such as spending same
training iterations to get similar mAP, does not differ from
each other, it is unnecessary to design a specific attack
region, which means attackers can place the DPATCH in any
area. We set the targeted class as bike, and kept the patch
size as 20-by-20, and the attacked detector is Faster R-CNN.</p>
        <p>Table.3 demonstrates the decreased mAP when Faster
R-CNN is attacked by randomly-located and fixed-located
DPATCH. It is notable that randomly-located one does
not improve the attack result. That is, recognition
accuracy(mAP) of all classes have declined to a similar value
no matter where the patch is located. This result makes
(a) targeted DPATCH attacking (b) targeted DPATCH
attackFaster R-CNN ing YOLO
sense because Faster R-CNN detector will first extract
thousands of region proposals all over the image, instead of
finding a specific area. In this case, if the detector search the
whole image in the first step, the region with DPATCH will
be treated as the only valid RoI. After this detection
process, all the detected objects will be misclassified as the
targeted class, which also has no relation with the location of
DPATCH. Similarly, YOLO also firstly sees the entire image,
the location of the DPATCH will not influence the attack
results. Therefore, we could place the DPATCH in an image
without intentionally designing its location, which
intensifies the feasibility of the attack.</p>
        <p>Multiple-Sized DPATCH. Since all previous targeted
attacks set the DPATCH size to be 20-by-20, we would
prefer to observe the impacts of DPATCH size on detectors. We
add two more sizes in this test: 40-by-40 and 80-by-80. It is
expected that larger-size patch can decrease mAP to a lower
value. Table.4 validates such expectation.</p>
        <p>In order to avoid the influence of training iterations, we
train these three DPATCH es for 200k iterations and make
them approach saturated points. We observe that the
smallest size for valid attack differ from individual classes. For
example, 20-by-20 sized DPATCH is robust enough to
attack bike, bird, boat and so on, while 80-by-80 sized one
still cannot thoroughly misclassify bottle, motor, person
and plant. Therefore, we can set the DPATCH size
according to the classes we mainly want to attack.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-4">
        <title>Further Analysis</title>
        <p>Training with Different Targeted Classes. It has been
found that the bounding box loss is easier to converge for
some class, e.g. tv, however, harder to converge for some
other targeted classes like bike and person. Therefore, we
would like to explore whether DPATCH of different targeted
classes can cause mAP drop down to a similar value after
same training iterations.</p>
        <p>We casually select two more classes to attack the same
40
)
(%30
P
A20
m
10
0
bike
boat
cow</p>
        <p>tv
plane bike bird boatbottle bus car catchair cowtable doghorsemotoprersonAVG
detector, Faster R-CNN: boat, cow to compare with tv and
bike. Fig.8 shows that after 200k training iterations, these
targeted classes cause mAP fall down to different levels. cow
and tv both decline mAP to almost 0, while bike and boat
shrink mAP to 24.72% and 33.50%.</p>
        <p>Based on this finding, we can conclude that tv and cow are
more efficient to attack Faster R-CNN networks. It could be
better to set the targeted class as tv or cow rather than boat or
bike. Hence, we can select the most efficient targeted class
to train the DPATCH if the dataset is known.</p>
        <p>Detector Transferability of DPATCH. In the previous
experiments, we attack the same detector as the DPATCH is
trained on. However, it is more effective if the DPATCH
is transferable among different detectors, specifically, we
train the DPATCH via YOLO and it can also successfully
attack Faster R-CNN. Fig.9 shows that a DPATCH trained
by YOLO, whose targeted class is person, can fool Faster
R-CNN. We apply this YOLO-trained DPATCH to each
image in the testing dataset of Pascal VOC 2007 and make
Faster R-CNN work as the detector, Table.1 demonstrates
that mAP of some classes, e.g. bike, bird, bottle, are even
declined to a lower value than attack on YOLO itself, while
the attack on some other classes are less effective, e.g.,
plane, boat. However, mAP of all classes have considerable
decrease. Similarly, Faster R-CNN trained DPATCH is also
able to attack YOLO, see Table.2. In such case, we can say
that our DPATCH can be designed as a universal and
blackbox adversarial attack for object detectors.</p>
        <p>Dataset Transferability of DPATCH. To investigate the
transferability of DPATCH among different datasets, we train
an untargeted DPatch using COCO and test it on Pascal VOC
trained detector. It is obvious that mAP decreases a lot
after attaching the DPatch, shown in Table.5. Although the
attack performance is not as good as the DPatch trained by the
same dataset, DPATCH can still considerably influence the
overall performance.</p>
        <p>Why DPATCH Works. As explained before, our main
purpose is to train a DPATCH pattern that once attached to the
input image, the RoIs extracted by the detector is the
region that DPATCH occupies. After extracting RoIs,
detector performs classification tasks and bounding box
regressions on these RoI areas while ignore others. In such case,
if the DPATCH attacks the detector successfully, most
extracted RoIs should gather in the region where we attach
DPATCH. To verify this inference, we sum up the RoIs to
find the most frequent area that RoI appears. As shown in
Fig.10, the number in each grid represents the frequency that
RoI occupies it. We attach a DPATCH in the left upper
corner of each image in the testing dataset, and let YOLO work
as the detector. Fig.10(a) verifies that YOLO-extracted RoIs
are concentrated on grid 1 and grid 2, where our DPATCH
locates. On contrary, Fig.10(b) shows that without DPATCH,
YOLO-extracted RoIs are distributed over all grids.</p>
        <p>Similarly, Fig.11 demonstrates the distribution of RoIs
extracted by Faster R-CNN with and without DPATCH. It
is clear that the regions that DPATCH occupies are
considered as RoIs more frequently, as shown in Fig.11(a). Instead,
(a) YOLO-extracted RoIs with (b) YOLO-extracted
DPATCH without DPATCH</p>
        <sec id="sec-4-4-1">
          <title>RoIs</title>
          <p>RoIs distribute much more evenly without the influence of
DPATCH, shown in Fig.11(b).</p>
          <p>Such analysis verifies that our DPATCH performs a
successful attack towards object detectors, mainly because all
the RoIs is actually occupied by the DPATCH , instead of
normal objects.</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>In this work, we successfully attack modern object
detectors using our proposed DPATCH, where the adversarial
attack is performed by learning and embedding a small patch
in the input image. Compared to prior works, our DPATCH
has several appealing properties: (1) DPATCH can perform
effective attacks against mainstream modern detector
architectures, such as the two-stage detector Faster R-CNN
and the one-stage detector YOLO; (2) DPATCH is small in
size and its attacking effect is location-independent,
making it very practical to implement real-world attacks; (3)
DPATCH demonstrates great transferability between
different detector architectures as well as training datasets. For
example, DPATCH that is trained on Faster R-CNN can
effectively attack YOLO, and vice versa. Our experiments
imply that DPATCH can perform effective attacks under
blackbox setup, i.e., even without the knowledge of the attacked
network’s architectures and parameters. The successful
realization of DPATCH also illustrates the intrinsic vulnerability
of the modern detector architectures to such patch-based
adversarial attacks.</p>
      <p>Towards
evaluatarXiv preprint</p>
      <p>Joseph, R.; Santosh, D.; Ross, G.; and Ali, F. 2015. You only
look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition(CVPR).</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Avishek</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Parham</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2018</year>
          .
          <article-title>Adversarial attacks on face detectors using neural net based constrained optimization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition(CVPR).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2017.
          <article-title>Adversarial patch</article-title>
          .
          <source>arXiv preprint arXiv:1712</source>
          .
          <fpage>09665</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Carlini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wagner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>arXiv:1608</source>
          .
          <fpage>04644</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liao</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dong</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ; and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>Defense against adversarial attacks using high-level representation guided denoiser</article-title>
          .
          <source>arXiv preprint arXiv:1712</source>
          .
          <fpage>02976</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Luo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ; and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>Deep learning face attributes in the wild</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision</source>
          ,
          <fpage>3730</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>3738</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Madry</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Makelov</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schmidt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ; and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tsipras</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks</article-title>
          .
          <source>arXiv preprint arXiv:1706</source>
          .
          <fpage>06083</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moosavi-Dezfooli</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S.-M.;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fawzi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ; and Frossard,
          <string-name>
            <surname>P.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>Deepfool: a simple and accurate method to fool deep neural networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)</source>
          ,
          <fpage>2574</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>2582</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Papernot</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>McDaniel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Goodfellow</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ; Jha,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            ;
            <surname>Celik</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Z. B.</given-names>
            ; and
            <surname>Swami</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>Practical black-box attacks against machine learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>2017 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Redmon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Farhadi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2016</year>
          .
          <article-title>Yolo9000: Better, faster, stronger</article-title>
          .
          <source>arXiv preprint arXiv:1612</source>
          .
          <fpage>08242</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ren</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>He</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Girshick</surname>
          </string-name>
          , R.; and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sun</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>Faster rcnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sharif</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bhagavatula</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bauer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ; and Reiter,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>Accessorize to a crime: Real and stealthy attacks on stateof-the-art face recognition</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security</source>
          ,
          <fpage>1528</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1540</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          2018.
          <article-title>Spatially transformed adversarial examples</article-title>
          . arXiv preprint:arXiv:
          <year>1801</year>
          .02612.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>