Breaking Neural Reasoning Architectures With Metamorphic Relation-Based Adversarial Examples
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
The ability to read, reason, and infer lies at the heart of neural reasoning architectures. After all, the ability to perform logical reasoning over language remains a coveted goal of Artificial Intelligence. To this end, models such as the Turing-complete differentiable neural computer (DNC) boast of real logical reasoning capabilities, along with the ability to reason beyond simple surface-level matching. In this brief, we propose the first probe into DNC's logical reasoning capabilities with a focus on text-based question answering (QA). More concretely, we propose a conceptually simple but effective adversarial attack based on metamorphic relations. Our proposed adversarial attack reduces DNCs' state-of-the-art accuracy from 100% to 1.5% in the worst case, exposing weaknesses and susceptibilities in modern neural reasoning architectures. We further empirically explore possibilities to defend against such attacks and demonstrate the utility of our adversarial framework as a simple scalable method to improve model adversarial robustness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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