Analyzing Physical Adversarial Example Threats to Machine Learning in Election Systems

Machine learning systems deployed in distributed or federated environments are highly susceptible to adversarial manipulations, particularly availability attacks -- rendering the trained model unavailable. Prior research in distributed ML has demonstrated such adversarial effects through the injection of gradients or data poisoning. In this work, we ask whether comparable degradation is still possible under a substantially more constrained action space: the adversary may only flip a limited number of labels of existing training examples, without modifying features, injecting samples, or directly controlling gradients. We analyze the extent of damage caused by constrained label flipping attacks against distributed learning under mean aggregation -- the dominant baseline in research and production. Focusing on classification problems, (1) we propose a novel formalization of label flipping attacks as a per-round constrained optimization problem, derive a greedy label-selection rule for logistic regression, and empirically evaluate it beyond its derivation setting, including on MLPs and robust aggregators. The rule is provably per-epoch optimal for the attacker under the mean aggregator. (2) Empirically, we show that optimized label flipping can cause substantial accuracy degradation while outperforming random label flipping under similar budgets. (3) We shed light on an interesting interplay between what the attacker gains from more write-access versus what they gain from more flipping budget. (4) Finally, although the attack is derived for mean aggregation, we find that it can transfer empirically to the coordinate-wise median and trimmed mean aggregators, where its effectiveness approaches that of the Little-is-Enough gradient attack. This demonstrates that even highly constrained label-flipping adversaries can pose a significant availability threat to distributed learning.

When used in automated decision-making systems, machine learning (ML) models are vulnerable to data-manipulation attacks. Some defense mechanisms (e.g., adversarial regularization) directly affect the ML models while others (e.g., anomaly detection) act within the broader system. In this paper we consider a different task for defending the adversary, focusing on the attacker, rather than the attack. We present and demonstrate a framework for identifying characteristics about the attacker from an observed attack. We prove that, without additional knowledge, the attacker is non-identifiable (multiple potential attackers would perform the same observed attack). To address this challenge, we propose a domain-agnostic framework to identify the most probable attacker. This framework aids the defender in two ways. First, knowledge about the attacker can be leveraged for exogenous mitigation (i.e., addressing the vulnerability by altering the decision-making system outside the learning algorithm and/or limiting the attacker's capability). Second, when implementing defense methods that directly affect the learning process (e.g., adversarial regularization), knowledge of the specific attacker improves performance. We present the details of our framework and illustrate its applicability through specific instantiations on a variety of learners.

Almost all adversarial attacks add an imperceptible perturbation to fool a model. We instead study the opposite: a large, clearly visible perturbation that causes the model to keep its original, correct prediction, even though a human would no longer recognize the image. Prior work showed such examples can be generated at scale but left three questions untested: whether humans really perform worse than the model, whether standard out-of-distribution (OOD) detection and calibration tools catch it, and whether existing defenses mitigate it. We answer all three on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and ImageNet. (i) An independent recognizer proxy drops to ~49% on CIFAR-10 while the model stays at 100% -- a gap a small human pilot (N=5) corroborates directly and that is not explained by signal loss (a matched-magnitude Gaussian control degrades recognizability faster); a CLIP zero-shot proxy confirms the gap at ImageNet scale too. (ii) Confidence- and energy-based OOD detectors and calibration are structurally blind (0% detection, ECE ~= 0), while a feature-space Mahalanobis detector flags 100% -- but is evaded by an adaptive attacker at no cost to success. (iii) No classical defense, including adversarial training (45% robust accuracy), reduces attack success (correlation with large-epsilon_l resistance r ~= 0). A mechanistic analysis further shows the attack destroys low-level texture far faster than edge/shape structure.