Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
102 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Beyond Score Changes: Adversarial Attack on No-Reference Image Quality Assessment from Two Perspectives (2404.13277v2)

Published 20 Apr 2024 in eess.IV and cs.CV

Abstract: Deep neural networks have demonstrated impressive success in No-Reference Image Quality Assessment (NR-IQA). However, recent researches highlight the vulnerability of NR-IQA models to subtle adversarial perturbations, leading to inconsistencies between model predictions and subjective ratings. Current adversarial attacks, however, focus on perturbing predicted scores of individual images, neglecting the crucial aspect of inter-score correlation relationships within an entire image set. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the correlation, like ranking correlation, plays a significant role in NR-IQA tasks. To comprehensively explore the robustness of NR-IQA models, we introduce a new framework of correlation-error-based attacks that perturb both the correlation within an image set and score changes on individual images. Our research primarily focuses on ranking-related correlation metrics like Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient (SROCC) and prediction error-related metrics like Mean Squared Error (MSE). As an instantiation, we propose a practical two-stage SROCC-MSE-Attack (SMA) that initially optimizes target attack scores for the entire image set and then generates adversarial examples guided by these scores. Experimental results demonstrate that our SMA method not only significantly disrupts the SROCC to negative values but also maintains a considerable change in the scores of individual images. Meanwhile, it exhibits state-of-the-art performance across metrics with different categories. Our method provides a new perspective on the robustness of NR-IQA models.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (44)
  1. Comparing the robustness of modern no-reference image-and video-quality metrics to adversarial attacks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 700–708.
  2. Fast Differentiable Sorting and Ranking. In ICML. 950–959.
  3. Deep Neural Networks for No-Reference and Full-Reference Image Quality Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 27, 1 (2018), 206–219.
  4. Olivier Chapelle and Mingrui Wu. 2010. Gradient descent optimization of smoothed information retrieval metrics. Information Retrieval 13, 3 (2010), 216–235.
  5. AutoFocusFormer: Image Segmentation off the Grid. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 18227–18236.
  6. Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44, 5 (2022), 2567–2581.
  7. An image is worth 16×16161616\times 1616 × 16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 1–21.
  8. SoDeep: A Sorting Deep Net to Learn Ranking Loss Surrogates. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10792–10801.
  9. Ruopeng Gao and Limin Wang. 2023. MeMOTR: Long-Term Memory-Augmented Transformer for Multi-Object Tracking. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9901–9910.
  10. Deepti Ghadiyaram and Alan C. Bovik. 2016. Massive Online Crowdsourced Study of Subjective and Objective Picture Quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 25, 1 (2016), 372–387.
  11. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 1–11.
  12. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 770–778.
  13. Maurice G. Kendall. 1938. A New Measure of Rank Correlation. Biometrika 30, 1/2 (1938), 81–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2332226
  14. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 1–15.
  15. Jari Korhonen and Junyong You. 2022. Adversarial Attacks Against Blind Image Quality Assessment Models. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Quality of Experience in Visual Multimedia Applications. 3–11.
  16. Norm-in-Norm Loss with Faster Convergence and Better Performance for Image Quality Assessment. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 789–797.
  17. ARRA: Absolute-Relative Ranking Attack against Image Retrieval. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 610–618.
  18. Quality Assessment of End-to-End Learned Image Compression: The Benchmark and Objective Measure. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 4297–4305.
  19. A Model-Agnostic Semantic-Quality Compatible Framework based on Self-Supervised Semantic Decoupling. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 6774–6784.
  20. Image quality assessment using contrastive learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31 (2022), 4149–4161.
  21. Evaluating the Vulnerability of Deep Learning-based Image Quality Assessment Methods to Adversarial Attacks. In European Workshop on Visual Information Processing. 1–6.
  22. Efficient Optimization for Rank-Based Loss Functions. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3693–3701.
  23. Karl Pearson. 1895. Note on Regression and Inheritance in the Case of Two Parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 58 (1895), 240–242.
  24. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In ICML. 8748–8763.
  25. A Haar wavelet-based perceptual similarity index for image quality assessment. Signal Processing: Image Communication 61 (2018), 33–43.
  26. Hamid R Sheikh and Alan C Bovik. 2006. Image information and visual quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 15, 2 (2006), 430–444.
  27. Towards adversarial robustness verification of no-reference image- and video-quality metrics. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 240 (2024), 103913.
  28. Universal Perturbation Attack on Differentiable No-Reference Image- and Video-Quality Metrics. In British Machine Vision Conference. 1–12.
  29. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2015. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. In International Conference on Learning Representations. 1–14.
  30. Applicability limitations of differentiable full-reference image-quality metrics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05499 (2022).
  31. Unveiling the Limitations of Novel Image Quality Metrics. In IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing. 1–6.
  32. Robust image retrieval by cascading a deep quality assessment network. Signal Processing: Image Communication 80 (2020), 115652.
  33. Charles Spearman. 1961. The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology 16, 1 (1961), 72–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159
  34. Blindly Assess Image Quality in the Wild Guided by a Self-Adaptive Hyper Network. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3664–3673.
  35. SoftRank: optimizing non-smooth rank metrics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 77–86.
  36. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 4 (2004), 600–12.
  37. Exploring Vulnerabilities of No-Reference Image Quality Assessment Models: A Query-Based Black-Box Method. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05217 (2024).
  38. MANIQA: Multi-dimension Attention Network for No-Reference Image Quality Assessment. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 1190–1199.
  39. Vulnerabilities in Video Quality Assessment Models: The Challenge of Adversarial Attacks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1–14.
  40. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metric. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 586–595.
  41. Perceptual Attacks of No-Reference Image Quality Models with Human-in-the-Loop. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2916–2929.
  42. Blind Image Quality Assessment Using a Deep Bilinear Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 30, 1 (2020), 36–47.
  43. Blind Image Quality Assessment via Vision-Language Correspondence: A Multitask Learning Perspective. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 14071–14081.
  44. Wei Zhou and Zhou Wang. 2022. Quality Assessment of Image Super-Resolution: Balancing Deterministic and Statistical Fidelity. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 934–942.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Chenxi Yang (14 papers)
  2. Yujia Liu (27 papers)
  3. Dingquan Li (18 papers)
  4. Yan Zhong (24 papers)
  5. Tingting Jiang (27 papers)
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.