Defence against adversarial attacks using classical and quantum-enhanced Boltzmann machines <sup>†</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We provide a robust defence to adversarial attacks on discriminative algorithms. Neural networks are naturally vulnerable to small, tailored perturbations in the input data that lead to wrong predictions. On the contrary, generative models attempt to learn the distribution underlying a dataset, making them inherently more robust to small perturbations. We use Boltzmann machines for discrimination purposes as attack-resistant classifiers, and compare them against standard state-of-the-art adversarial defences. We find improvements ranging from 5% to 72% against attacks with Boltzmann machines on the MNIST dataset. We furthermore complement the training with quantum-enhanced sampling from the D-Wave 2000Q annealer, finding results comparable with classical techniques and with marginal improvements in some cases. These results underline the relevance of probabilistic methods in constructing neural networks and highlight a novel scenario of practical relevance where quantum computers, even with limited hardware capabilities, could provide advantages over classical computers.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it