Robust Regularization with Adversarial Labelling of Perturbed Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent researches have suggested that the predictive accuracy of neural network may contend with its adversarial robustness. This presents challenges in designing effective regularization schemes that also provide strong adversarial robustness. Revisiting Vicinal Risk Minimization (VRM) as a unifying regularization principle, we propose Adversarial Labelling of Perturbed Samples (ALPS) as a regularization scheme that aims at improving the generalization ability and adversarial robustness of the trained model. ALPS trains neural networks with synthetic samples formed by perturbing each authentic input sample towards another one along with an adversarially assigned label. The ALPS regularization objective is formulated as a min-max problem, in which the outer problem is minimizing an upper-bound of the VRM loss, and the inner problem is L1-ball constrained adversarial labelling on perturbed sample. The analytic solution to the induced inner maximization problem is elegantly derived, which enables computational efficiency. Experiments on the SVHN, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and Tiny-ImageNet datasets show that the ALPS has a state-of-the-art regularization performance while also serving as an effective adversarial training scheme.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".