MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192770481 · doi:10.1016/j.dcan.2021.07.009

Poisoning attacks and countermeasures in intelligent networks: Status quo and prospects

2021· article· en· W3192770481 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Communications and Networks · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hubei ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsStatus quoComputer scienceComputer securityRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past years, the emergence of intelligent networks empowered by machine learning techniques has brought great facilitates to different aspects of human life. However, using machine learning in intelligent networks also presents potential security and privacy threats. A common practice is the so-called poisoning attacks where malicious users inject fake training data with the aim of corrupting the learned model. In this survey, we comprehensively review existing poisoning attacks as well as the countermeasures in intelligent networks for the first time. We emphasize and compare the principles of the formal poisoning attacks employed in different categories of learning algorithms, and analyze the strengths and limitations of corresponding defense methods in a compact form. We also highlight some remaining challenges and future directions in the attack-defense confrontation to promote further research in this emerging yet promising area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it