arXiv subjects

Amine Ben Hassouna

Publications and source records attributed to Amine Ben Hassouna.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Dynamic Mask-Based Backdoor Attack Against Vision AI Models: A Case Study on Mushroom Detection

Deep learning has revolutionized numerous tasks within the computer vision field, including image classification, image segmentation, and object detection. However, the increasing deployment of deep learning models has exposed them to various adversarial attacks, including backdoor attacks. This paper presents a novel dynamic mask-based backdoor attack method, specifically designed for object detection models. We exploit a dataset poisoning technique to embed a malicious trigger, rendering any models trained on this compromised dataset vulnerable to our backdoor attack. We particularly focus on a mushroom detection dataset to demonstrate the practical risks posed by such attacks on critical real-life domains. Our work also emphasizes the importance of creating a detailed backdoor attack scenario to illustrate the significant risks associated with the outsourcing practice. Our approach leverages SAM, a recent and powerful image segmentation AI model, to create masks for dynamic trigger placement, introducing a new and stealthy attack method. Through extensive experimentation, we show that our sophisticated attack scenario maintains high accuracy on clean data with the YOLOv7 object detection model while achieving high attack success rates on poisoned samples. Our approach surpasses traditional methods for backdoor injection, which are based on static and consistent patterns. Our findings underscore the urgent need for robust countermeasures to protect deep learning models from these evolving adversarial threats.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

LLM-Agent-UMF: LLM-based Agent Unified Modeling Framework for Seamless Design of Multi Active/Passive Core-Agent Architectures

In an era where vast amounts of data are collected and processed from diverse sources, there is a growing demand for sophisticated AI systems capable of intelligently fusing and analyzing this information. To address these challenges, researchers have turned towards integrating tools into LLM-powered agents to enhance the overall information fusion process. However, the conjunction of these technologies and the proposed enhancements in several state-of-the-art works followed a non-unified software architecture, resulting in a lack of modularity and terminological inconsistencies among researchers. To address these issues, we propose a novel LLM-based Agent Unified Modeling Framework (LLM-Agent-UMF) that establishes a clear foundation for agent development from both functional and software architectural perspectives, developed and evaluated using the Architecture Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Framework (ATRAF). Our framework clearly distinguishes between the different components of an LLM-based agent, setting LLMs and tools apart from a new element, the core-agent, which plays the role of central coordinator. This pivotal entity comprises five modules: planning, memory, profile, action, and security -- the latter often neglected in previous works. By classifying core-agents into passive and active types based on their authoritative natures, we propose various multi-core agent architectures that combine unique characteristics of distinctive agents to tackle complex tasks more efficiently. We evaluate our framework by applying it to thirteen state-of-the-art agents, thereby demonstrating its alignment with their functionalities and clarifying overlooked architectural aspects. Moreover, we thoroughly assess five architecture variants of our framework by designing new agent architectures that combine characteristics of state-of-the-art agents to address specific goals. ...

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

ATRAF-driven IMRaD Methodology: Tradeoff and Risk Analysis of Software Architectures Across Abstraction Levels

Software architecture research relies on key architectural artifacts -- Software Architectures, Reference Architectures, and Architectural Frameworks -- that underpin the design and analysis of complex systems. Evaluating these artifacts is essential to assess tradeoffs and risks affecting quality attributes such as performance, modifiability, and security. Although methodologies like the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) support software architecture evaluation, their industrial focus misaligns with the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) format prevalent in academic research, impeding transparency and reproducibility. Our prior work introduced the Architecture Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Framework (ATRAF), extending ATAM through three methods -- ATRAM, RATRAM, and AFTRAM, addressing all abstraction levels, using a unified, iterative four-phase spiral model. These phases -- Scenario and Requirements Gathering, Architectural Views and Scenario Realization, Attribute-Specific Analyses, and Sensitivity, Tradeoff, and Risk Analysis -- ensure traceability and coherence. This paper presents the ATRAF-driven IMRaD Methodology, a concise method to align ATRAF's phases with IMRaD sections. This methodology enhances the rigor, transparency, and accessibility of software architecture research, enabling systematic reporting of complex evaluations.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

The Architecture Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Framework (ATRAF): A Unified Approach for Evaluating Software Architectures, Reference Architectures, and Architectural Frameworks

Modern software systems are guided by hierarchical architectural concepts -- software architectures, reference architectures, and architectural frameworks -- each operating at a distinct level of abstraction. These artifacts promote reuse, scalability, and consistency, but also embed tradeoffs that shape critical quality attributes such as modifiability, performance, and security. Existing evaluation methods, such as the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM), focus on system-specific architectures and are not designed to address the broader generality and variability of higher-level architectural forms. To close this gap, we introduce the Architecture Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Framework (ATRAF) -- a unified, scenario-driven framework for evaluating tradeoffs and risks across architectural levels. ATRAF encompasses three methods: the Architecture Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Method (ATRAM), extending ATAM with enhanced risk identification for concrete systems; the Reference Architecture Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Method (RATRAM), adapting ATRAM to the evaluation of domain-level reference architectures; and the Architectural Framework Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Method (AFTRAM), supporting the evaluation of architectural frameworks that guide entire system families. All three methods follow an iterative spiral process that enables the identification of sensitivities, tradeoffs, and risks while supporting continuous refinement of architectural artifacts. We demonstrate ATRAF through progressively abstracted examples derived from the Remote Temperature Sensor (RTS) case, originally introduced in the ATAM literature. ATRAF equips architects, reference modelers, and framework designers with a practical, systematic approach for analyzing design alternatives and managing quality attribute tradeoffs early in the lifecycle and across all levels of architectural abstraction.

cs.SE↗