Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incredible effectiveness of adversarial attacks on fooling deep neural networks poses a tremendous hurdle in the widespread adoption of deep learning in safety and security-critical domains. While adversarial defense mechanisms have been proposed since the discovery of the adversarial vulnerability issue of deep neural networks, there is a long path to fully understand and address this issue. In this study, we hypothesize that part of the reason for the incredible effectiveness of adversarial attacks is their ability to implicitly tap into and exploit the gradient flow of a deep neural network. This innate ability to exploit gradient flow makes defending against such attacks quite challenging. Motivated by this hypothesis we argue that if a deep neural network architecture can explicitly tap into its own gradient flow during the training, it can boost its defense capability significantly. Inspired by this fact, we introduce the concept of self-gradient networks, a novel deep neural network architecture designed to be more robust against adversarial perturbations. Gradient flow information is leveraged within self-gradient networks to achieve greater perturbation stability beyond what can be achieved in the standard training process. We conduct a theoretical analysis to gain better insights into the behaviour of the proposed self-gradient networks to illustrate the efficacy of leverage this additional gradient flow information. The proposed self-gradient network architecture enables much more efficient and effective adversarial training, leading to faster convergence towards an adversarially robust solution by at least 10X. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of self-gradient networks when compared with state-of-the-art adversarial learning strategies, with 10% improvement on the CIFAR10 dataset under PGD and CW adversarial perturbations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".