Attack and defence in cellular decision-making: lessons from machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning algorithms can be fooled by small well-designed adversarial perturbations. This is reminiscent of cellular decision-making where ligands (called antagonists) prevent correct signalling, like in early immune recognition. We draw a formal analogy between neural networks used in machine learning and models of cellular decision-making (adaptive proofreading). We apply attacks from machine learning to simple decision-making models, and show explicitly the correspondence to antagonism by weakly bound ligands. Such antagonism is absent in more nonlinear models, which inspired us to implement a biomimetic defence in neural networks filtering out adversarial perturbations. We then apply a gradient-descent approach from machine learning to different cellular decision-making models, and we reveal the existence of two regimes characterized by the presence or absence of a critical point for the gradient. This critical point causes the strongest antagonists to lie close to the decision boundary. This is validated in the loss landscapes of robust neural networks and cellular decision-making models, and observed experimentally for immune cells. For both regimes, we explain how associated defence mechanisms shape the geometry of the loss landscape, and why different adversarial attacks are effective in different regimes. Our work connects evolved cellular decision-making to machine learning, and motivates the design of a general theory of adversarial perturbations, both for in vivo and in silico systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".