Consistency Regularization for Adversarial Robustness
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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