4 ms·
How about a 1px Gaussian blur? Haven't read the paper but I had the same thought. Seems way too tenuous.
by turdnagel 6y ago
How about a 1px Gaussian blur? Haven't read the paper but I had the same thought. Seems way too tenuous.
- gruez 6y agofrom the paper: > However,we find that none of these transformations defeat our cloaks. The protection success rate remains 100% even when data augmentation is applied to cloaked images5. Ap-plying Gaussian blurring degrades normal accuracy by up to18% (as kernel size increases) while cloak protection success rate remains>98% (see Figure13). Adding Gaussian noise to images merely disrupts normal classification accuracy –the cloak protection success rate remains above 100% as the standard deviation of the noise distribution increases(seeFigure14). Even image compression cannot defeat our cloak.We use progressive JPEG [57], reportedly used by Facebookand Twitter, to compress the images in our dataset. The im-age quality, as standard by Independent JPEG Group [1],ranges from 5 to 95 (lower value = higher compression). As shown in Figure15, image compression decreases the pro-tection success rate, but more significantly degrades normal classification accuracy.
- ZeikJT 6y agoYou don't even have to read the paper, it's in the FAQs: "Can't you just apply some filter, or compression, or blurring algorithm, or add some noise to the image to destroy image cloaks?" Short answer: No not really. Long answer: Look at the FAQs :)