It Is All about Data: A Survey on the Effects of Data on Adversarial Robustness
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
Adversarial examples are inputs to machine learning models that an attacker has intentionally designed to confuse the model into making a mistake. Such examples pose a serious threat to the applicability of machine learning-based systems, especially in life- and safety-critical domains. To address this problem, the area of adversarial robustness investigates mechanisms behind adversarial attacks and defenses against these attacks. This survey reviews a particular subset of this literature that focuses on investigating properties of training data in the context of model robustness under evasion attacks. It first summarizes the main properties of data leading to adversarial vulnerability. It then discusses guidelines and techniques for improving adversarial robustness by enhancing the data representation and learning procedures, as well as techniques for estimating robustness guarantees given particular data. Finally, it discusses gaps of knowledge and promising future research directions in this 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 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 | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.039 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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