Knowing is Half the Battle: Enhancing Clean Data Accuracy of Adversarial Robust Deep Neural Networks via Dual-Model Bounded Divergence Gating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant advances have been made in recent years in improving the robustness of deep neural networks, particularly under adversarial machine learning scenarios where the data has been contaminated to fool networks into making undesirable predictions. However, such improvements in adversarial robustness has often come at a significant cost in model accuracy when dealing with uncontaminated data (i.e., clean data), making such defense mechanisms challenging to adapt for real-world practical scenarios where data is primarily clean and accuracy needs to be high. Motivated to find a better balance between adversarial robustness and clean data accuracy, we propose a new model-agnostic adversarial defense mechanism named Dual-model Bounded Divergence (DBD), driven by a theoretical and empirical analysis of the bias-variance trade-off within an adversarial machine learning context. More specifically, the proposed DBD mechanism is premised on the observation that the variance in deep neural networks tends to increase in the presence of adversarial perturbations in the input data. As such, DBD employs a gating mechanism to decide on the final model prediction output based on a novel dual-model variance measure (coined DBD Variance), which is a bounded version of KL-Divergence between models. Not only is the proposed DBD mechanism itself training-free, but it can be combined with existing adversarial defense mechanisms to boost the balance between clean data accuracy and adversarial robustness. Comprehensive experimental results across over 10 different state-of-the-art adversarial defense mechanisms using both CIFAR-10 and ImageNet benchmark datasets across different adversarial attacks (e.g., APGD, AutoAttack) demonstrates that the integration of DBD can lead to as much as a 6% improvement on clean data accuracy without compromising much on adversarial robustness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".