Understanding and mitigating universal adversarial perturbations for computer vision neural networks

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have become the algorithm of choice for many computer vision applications. They are able to achieve human level performance in many computer vision tasks, and enable the automation and large-scale deployment of applications such as object tracking, autonomous vehicles, and medical imaging. However, DNNs expose software applications to systemic vulnerabilities in the form of Universal Adversarial Perturbations (UAPs): input perturbation attacks that can cause DNNs to make classification errors on large sets of inputs. Our aim is to improve the robustness of computer vision DNNs to UAPs without sacrificing the models' predictive performance. To this end, we increase our understanding of these vulnerabilities by investigating the visual structures and patterns commonly appearing in UAPs. We demonstrate the efficacy and pervasiveness of UAPs by showing how Procedural Noise patterns can be used to generate efficient zero-knowledge attacks for different computer vision models and tasks at minimal cost to the attacker. We then evaluate the UAP robustness of various shape and texture-biased models, and found that applying them in ensembles provides marginal improvement to robustness. To mitigate UAP attacks, we develop two novel approaches. First, we propose the Jacobian of DNNs to measure the sensitivity of computer vision DNNs. We derive theoretical bounds and provide empirical evidence that shows how a combination of Jacobian regularisation and ensemble methods allow for increased model robustness against UAPs without degrading the predictive performance of computer vision DNNs. Our results evince a robustness-accuracy trade-off against UAPs that is better than those of models trained in conventional ways. Finally, we design a detection method that analyses the hidden layer activation values to identify a variety of UAP attacks in real-time with low-latency. We show that our work outperforms existing defences under realistic time and computation constraints.Open Acces

Assessing Evidence for a Pervasive Alteration in Tropical Tree Communities

In Amazonian tropical forests, recent studies have reported increases in aboveground biomass and in primary productivity, as well as shifts in plant species composition favouring fast-growing species over slow-growing ones. This pervasive alteration of mature tropical forests was attributed to global environmental change, such as an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, nutrient deposition, temperature, drought frequency, and/or irradiance. We used standardized, repeated measurements of over 2 million trees in ten large (16–52 ha each) forest plots on three continents to evaluate the generality of these findings across tropical forests. Aboveground biomass increased at seven of our ten plots, significantly so at four plots, and showed a large decrease at a single plot. Carbon accumulation pooled across sites was significant (+0.24 MgC ha−1 y−1, 95% confidence intervals [0.07, 0.39] MgC ha−1 y−1), but lower than reported previously for Amazonia. At three sites for which we had data for multiple census intervals, we found no concerted increase in biomass gain, in conflict with the increased productivity hypothesis. Over all ten plots, the fastest-growing quartile of species gained biomass (+0.33 [0.09, 0.55] % y−1) compared with the tree community as a whole (+0.15 % y−1); however, this significant trend was due to a single plot. Biomass of slow-growing species increased significantly when calculated over all plots (+0.21 [0.02, 0.37] % y−1), and in half of our plots when calculated individually. Our results do not support the hypothesis that fast-growing species are consistently increasing in dominance in tropical tree communities. Instead, they suggest that our plots may be simultaneously recovering from past disturbances and affected by changes in resource availability. More long-term studies are necessary to clarify the contribution of global change to the functioning of tropical forests

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field