Interpretable_CNN icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
Interpretable_CNN copied to clipboard

run FF/FGSM and FF/BIM test accuracy

Open BeepBump opened this issue 7 years ago • 2 comments

Sorry for bothering, when I run FF/FGS and FF/BIM for test accuracy, I got the values different from the paper. (FF/FGS: 6.13% and FF/BIM: 12.20%)

ps. I use the command below python cifar_keras.py -train_dir cifar_ff_model -filename FF_init_model.ckpt -method BIM/FGSM

BeepBump avatar Nov 05 '18 09:11 BeepBump

image From Table4 of the paper, the result is 6% and 12%, which corresponds to 6.13% and 12.20% of your test result.

davidsonic avatar Nov 05 '18 18:11 davidsonic

I have another question, in saab_compact.py # Compute bias term bias = LA.norm(sample_patches, axis=1) bias = np.max(bias) pca_params['Layer_%d/bias' % i] = bias # Add bias sample_patches_centered_w_bias = sample_patches_centered + 1 / np.sqrt(num_channels) * bias # Transform to get data for the next stage transformed = np.matmul(sample_patches_centered_w_bias, np.transpose(kernels)) # Remove bias e = np.zeros((1, kernels.shape[0])) e[0, 0] = 1 transformed -= bias * e When I read the paper, I thought saab may do inner product first, then add the bias to prevent negative responses. However, why the code seems to add bias before inner product then substract bias?

BeepBump avatar Nov 19 '18 09:11 BeepBump