• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • 🇫🇷
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Research Summary: Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples

June 28, 2020

Summary contributed by Shannon Egan, Research Fellow at Building 21 and pursuing a master’s in physics at UBC.

*Author & link to original paper at the bottom.


Click here for the FULL summary in PDF form

(Short-form summary below)

A bemusing weakness of many supervised machine learning (ML) models, including neural networks (NNs), are adversarial examples (AEs).  AEs are inputs generated by adding a small perturbation to a correctly-classified input, causing the model to misclassify the resulting AE with high confidence.  Goodfellow et al. propose a linear explanation of AEs, in which the vulnerability of ML models to AEs is considered a by-product of their linear behaviour and high-dimensional feature space.  In other words, small perturbations on an input can alter its classification because the change in NN activation (as result of the perturbation) scales with the size of the input vector.

Identifying ways to effectively handle AEs is of interest for problems like image classification, where the input consists of intensity data for many thousands of pixels.  A method of generating AEs called “fast gradient sign method” badly fools a maxout network, leading to a 89.4% error rate on a perturbed MNIST test set.  The authors propose an “adversarial training” scheme for NNs, in which an adversarial term is added to the loss function during training. 

This dramatically improves the error rate of the same maxout network to 17.4% on AEs generated by the fast gradient sign method. The linear interpretation of adversarial examples suggests an approach to adversarial training which improves a model’s ability to classify AEs, and helps interpret properties of AE classification which the previously proposed nonlinearity and overfitting hypotheses do not explain. 


Click here for the full summary in PDF form.

Original paper by Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathan Shlens and Christian Szegedy: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

Beyond Consultation: Building Inclusive AI Governance for Canada’s Democratic Future

AI Policy Corner: U.S. Executive Order on Advancing AI Education for American Youth

AI Policy Corner: U.S. Copyright Guidance on Works Created with AI

AI Policy Corner: AI for Good Summit 2025

AI Policy Corner: Japan’s AI Promotion Act

related posts

  • Artificial Intelligence - Application to the Sports Industry (Research summary)

    Artificial Intelligence - Application to the Sports Industry (Research summary)

  • Research summary: Maximizing Privacy and Effectiveness in COVID-19 Apps

    Research summary: Maximizing Privacy and Effectiveness in COVID-19 Apps

  • Research summary: PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities

    Research summary: PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities

  • Before and after GDPR: tracking in mobile apps

    Before and after GDPR: tracking in mobile apps

  • Examining the Black Box: Tools for Assessing Algorithmic Systems (Research Summary)

    Examining the Black Box: Tools for Assessing Algorithmic Systems (Research Summary)

  • The philosophical basis of algorithmic recourse

    The philosophical basis of algorithmic recourse

  • Putting AI ethics to work: are the tools fit for purpose?

    Putting AI ethics to work: are the tools fit for purpose?

  • Embedded ethics: a proposal for integrating ethics into the development of medical AI

    Embedded ethics: a proposal for integrating ethics into the development of medical AI

  • Measuring Disparate Outcomes of Content Recommendation Algorithms with Distributional Inequality Met...

    Measuring Disparate Outcomes of Content Recommendation Algorithms with Distributional Inequality Met...

  • Harmonizing Artificial Intelligence: The role of standards in the EU AI Regulation

    Harmonizing Artificial Intelligence: The role of standards in the EU AI Regulation

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • © 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.