Soft Adversarial Training Can Retain Natural Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial training for neural networks has been in the limelight in recent years. The advancement in neural network architectures over the last decade has led to significant improvement in their performance. It sparked an interest in their deployment for real-time applications. This process initiated the need to understand the vulnerability of these models to adversarial attacks. It is instrumental in designing models that are robust against adversaries. Recent works have proposed novel techniques to counter the adversaries, most often sacrificing natural accuracy. Most suggest training with an adversarial version of the inputs, constantly moving away from the original distribution. The focus of our work is to use abstract certification to extract a subset of inputs for (hence we call it 'soft') adversarial training. We propose a training framework that can retain natural accuracy without sacrificing robustness in a constrained setting. Our framework specifically targets moderately critical applications which require a reasonable balance between robustness and accuracy. The results testify to the idea of soft adversarial training for the defense against adversarial attacks. At last, we propose the scope of future work for further improvement of this framework.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".