VIC-KD: Variance-Invariance-Covariance Knowledge Distillation to Make Keyword Spotting More Robust Against Adversarial Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keyword spotting (KWS) refers to the task of identifying a set of predefined words in audio streams. With the advances seen recently with deep neural networks, it has become a popular technology to activate and control small devices, such as voice assistants. Relying on such models for edge devices, however, can be challenging due to hardware constraints. Moreover, as adversarial attacks have increased against voice-based technologies, developing solutions robust to such attacks has become crucial. In this work, we propose VIC-KD, a robust distillation recipe for model compression and adversarial robustness. Using self-supervised speech representations, we show that imposing geometric priors to the latent representations of both Teacher and Student models leads to more robust target models. Experiments on the Google Speech Commands datasets show that the proposed methodology improves upon current state-of-the-art robust distillation methods, such as ARD and RSLAD, by 12% and 8% in robust accuracy, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".