Adversarial Training Methods for Deep Learning: A Systematic Review
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
Deep neural networks are exposed to the risk of adversarial attacks via the fast gradient sign method (FGSM), projected gradient descent (PGD) attacks, and other attack algorithms. Adversarial training is one of the methods used to defend against the threat of adversarial attacks. It is a training schema that utilizes an alternative objective function to provide model generalization for both adversarial data and clean data. In this systematic review, we focus particularly on adversarial training as a method of improving the defensive capacities and robustness of machine learning models. Specifically, we focus on adversarial sample accessibility through adversarial sample generation methods. The purpose of this systematic review is to survey state-of-the-art adversarial training and robust optimization methods to identify the research gaps within this field of applications. The literature search was conducted using Engineering Village (Engineering Village is an engineering literature search tool, which provides access to 14 engineering literature and patent databases), where we collected 238 related papers. The papers were filtered according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and information was extracted from these papers according to a defined strategy. A total of 78 papers published between 2016 and 2021 were selected. Data were extracted and categorized using a defined strategy, and bar plots and comparison tables were used to show the data distribution. The findings of this review indicate that there are limitations to adversarial training methods and robust optimization. The most common problems are related to data generalization and overfitting.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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