RAILS: A Robust Adversarial Immune-Inspired Learning System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial attacks against deep neural networks (DNNs) are continuously evolving, requiring increasingly powerful defense strategies. We develop a novel adversarial defense framework inspired by the adaptive immune system: the Robust Adversarial Immune-inspired Learning System (RAILS). Initializing a population of exemplars that is balanced across classes, RAILS starts from a uniform label distribution that encourages diversity and uses an evolutionary optimization process to adaptively adjust the predictive label distribution in a manner that emulates the way the natural immune system recognizes novel pathogens. RAILS’ evolutionary optimization process explicitly captures the tradeoff between robustness (diversity) and accuracy (specificity) of the network, and represents a new immune-inspired perspective on adversarial learning. The benefits of RAILS are empirically demonstrated under eight types of adversarial attacks on a DNN adversarial image classifier for several benchmark datasets, including: MNIST; SVHN; CIFAR-10; and CIFAR-10. We find that PGD is the most damaging attack strategy and that for this attack RAILS is significantly more robust than other methods, achieving improvements in adversarial robustness by$\geq 5.62\%, 12.5\%$, 10.32%, and 8.39%, on these respective datasets, without appreciable loss of classification accuracy. Codes for the results in this paper are available athttps://github.com/wangren09/RAILS.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".