Robustness Against Adversarial Attacks Via Learning Confined Adversarial Polytopes
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 (DNNs) could be deceived by generating human-imperceptible perturbations of clean samples. Therefore, enhancing the robustness of DNNs against adversarial attacks is a crucial task. In this paper, we aim to train robust DNNs by limiting the set of outputs reachable via a norm-bounded perturbation added to a clean sample. We refer to this set as adversarial polytope, and each clean sample has a respective adversarial polytope. Indeed, if the respective polytopes for all the samples are compact such that they do not intersect the decision boundaries of the DNN, then the DNN is robust against adversarial samples. Hence, the inner-working of our algorithm is based on learning confined adversarial polytopes (CAP). By conducting a thorough set of experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CAP over existing adversarial robustness methods in improving the robustness of models against state-of-the-art attacks including AutoAttack.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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