user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Using Explainabilty to Detect Adversarial Attacks

Paper content:
Deep learning models are often sensitive to adversarial attacks, where carefully-designed input samples can cause the system to produce incorrect decisions.
Here we focus on the problem of detecting attacks, rather than robust classification, since detecting that an attack occurs may be even more important than avoiding misclassification.
We build on advances in explainability, where activity-map-like explanations are used to justify and validate decisions, by highlighting features that are involved with a classification decision.
The key observation is that it is hard to create explanations for incorrect decisions.
We propose EXAID, a novel attack-detection approach, which uses model explainability to identify images whose explanations are inconsistent with the predicted class
. Specifically, we use SHAP, which uses Shapley values in the space of the input image, to identify which input features contribute to a class decision
. Interestingly, this approach does not require to modify the attacked model, and it can be applied without modelling a specific attack
. It can therefore be applied successfully to detect unfamiliar attacks, that were unknown at the time the detection model was designed
. We evaluate EXAID on two benchmark datasets CIFAR-10 and SVHN, and against three leading attack techniques, FGSM, PGD and C&W.
We find that EXAID improves over the SoTA detection methods by a large margin across a wide range of noise levels, improving detection from 70% to over 90% for small perturbations.
Machine learning systems can be tricked to make incorrect decisions, when presented with samples that were slightly perturbed, but in special, adversarial ways (Szegedy et al., 2013) .
This sensitivity, by now widely studied, can hurt networks regardless of the application domain, and can be applied without knowledge of the model (Papernot et al., 2017) .
Detecting such adversarial attacks is currently a key problem in machine learning.
To motivate our approach, consider how most conferences decide on which papers get accepted for publication.
Human classifiers, known as reviewers, make classification decisions, but unfortunately these are notoriously noisy.
To verify that their decision are sensible, reviewers are also asked to explain and justify their decision.
Then, a second classifier, known as an area-chair or an editor, examines the classification, together with the explanation and the paper itself, to verify that the explanation supports the decision.
If the justification is not valid, the review may be discounted or ignored.
In this paper, we build on a similar intuition: Explaining a decision can reduce misclassification.
Clearly, the analogy is not perfect, since unlike human reviewers, for deep models we do not have trustworthy methods to provide high level semantic explanation of decisions.
Instead, we study below the effect of using the wider concept of explanation on detecting incorrect decisions, and in particular given adversarial samples that are designed to confuse a classifier.
The key idea is that different classes have different explaining features, and that by probing explanations, one can detect classification decisions that are inconsistent with the explanation.
For example, if an image is classified as a dog, but has an explanation that gives high weight to a striped pattern, it is more likely that the classification is incorrect.
We focus here on the problem of detecting adversarial samples, rather than developing a system that provides robust classifications under adversarial attacks.
This is because in many cases we are interested to detect that an attack occurs, even if we cannot automatically correct the decision.
The key idea in detecting adversarial attacks, is to identify cases where the network behaves differently than when presented with untainted inputs, and previous methods focused on various different aspects of the network to recognize such different behaviours Lee et al. (2018) ; Ma et al. (2018) ; Liang et al. (2018) ; Roth et al. (2019) ; Dong et al. (2019) ; Katzir & Elovici (2018) ; Xu et al. (2017) .
To detect these differences, here we build on recent work in explainability Lundberg & Lee (2017b) .
The key intuition is that explainability algorithms are designed to point to input features that are the reason for making a decision.
Even though leading explainability methods are still mostly based on high-order correlations and not necessarily identify purely causal features, they often yield features that people identify as causal (Lundberg & Lee, 2017a) .
Explainability therefore operates directly against the aim of adversarial methods, which perturb images in directions that are not causal for a class.
The result is that detection methods based on explainability holds the promise to work particularly well with adversarial perturbations that lead to nonsensical classification decisions.
There is second major reason why using explainable features for adversarial detection is promising.
Explainable features are designed to explain the classification decision of a classifier trained on non-modified (normal) data.
As a result, they are independent of any specific adversarial attack.
Some previous methods are based on learning the statistical abnormalities of the added perturbation.
This makes them sensitive to the specific perturbation characteristics, which change from one attack method to another, or with change of hyperparameters.
Instead, explainability models can be agnostic of the particular perturbation method.
The challenge in detecting adversarial attacks becomes more severe when the perturbations of the input samples are small.
Techniques like C&W Carlini & Wagner (2017b) can adaptively select the noise level for a given input, to reach the smallest perturbation that causes incorrect classification.
It is therefore particularly important to design detection methods that can operate in the regime of small perturbations.
Explanation-based detection is inherently less sensitive to the magnitude of the perturbation, because it focuses on those input features that explain a decision for a given class.
In this paper we describe an EXAID (EXplAIn-then-Detect), an explanation-based method to detect adversarial attacks.
It is designed to capture low-noise perturbations from unknown attacks, by building an explanation model per-class that can be trained without access to any adversarial samples.
Our novel contributions are as follows: We describe a new approach to detect adversarial attacks using explainability techniques.
We study the effect of negative sampling techniques to train such detectors.
We also study the robustness of this approach in the regime of low-noise (small perturbations).
Finally, we show that the new detection provides state-of-the-art defense against the three leading attacks (FGSM, PGD, CW) both for known attacks and in the setting of detecting unfamiliar attacks.
In this paper we proposed EXAID, a novel attack-detection approach, which uses model explainability to identify images whose explanations are inconsistent with the predicted class.
Our method outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods, for three attack methods, and many noise-levels.
We demonstrated that the attack noise level has a major impact on previous defense methods.
We hope this will encourage the research community to evaluate future defense methods on a large range of noise-levels.

assistant: text: A novel adversarial detection approach, which uses explainability methods to identify images whose explanations are inconsistent with the predicted class.