Consistency Regularization for Adversarial Robustness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial training (AT) is currently one of the most successful methods to obtain the adversarial robustness of deep neural networks. However, the phenomenon of robust overfitting, i.e., the robustness starts to decrease significantly during AT, has been problematic, not only making practitioners consider a bag of tricks for a successful training, e.g., early stopping, but also incurring a significant generalization gap in the robustness. In this paper, we propose an effective regularization technique that prevents robust overfitting by optimizing an auxiliary `consistency' regularization loss during AT. Specifically, we discover that data augmentation is a quite effective tool to mitigate the overfitting in AT, and develop a regularization that forces the predictive distributions after attacking from two different augmentations of the same instance to be similar with each other. Our experimental results demonstrate that such a simple regularization technique brings significant improvements in the test robust accuracy of a wide range of AT methods. More remarkably, we also show that our method could significantly help the model to generalize its robustness against unseen adversaries, e.g., other types or larger perturbations compared to those used during training. Code is available at https://github.com/alinlab/consistency-adversarial.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".