On the Robustness of Metric Learning: An Adversarial Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metric learning aims at automatically learning a distance metric from data so that the precise similarity between data instances can be faithfully reflected, and its importance has long been recognized in many fields. An implicit assumption in existing metric learning works is that the learned models are performed in a reliable and secure environment. However, the increasingly critical role of metric learning makes it susceptible to a risk of being malicious attacked. To well understand the performance of metric learning models in adversarial environments, in this article, we study the robustness of metric learning to adversarial perturbations, which are also known as the imperceptible changes to the input data that are crafted by an attacker to fool a well-learned model. However, different from traditional classification models, metric learning models take instance pairs rather than individual instances as input, and the perturbation on one instance may not necessarily affect the prediction result for an instance pair, which makes it more difficult to study the robustness of metric learning. To address this challenge, in this article, we first provide a definition of pairwise robustness for metric learning, and then propose a novel projected gradient descent-based attack method (called AckMetric) to evaluate the robustness of metric learning models. To further explore the capability of the attacker to change the prediction results, we also propose a theoretical framework to derive the upper bound of the pairwise adversarial loss. Finally, we incorporate the derived bound into the training process of metric learning and design a novel defense method to make the learned models more robust. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.
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 | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".