Improving Adversarial Robustness of Conjugate Neural Networks with Guided Diversity
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
This paper introduces Conjugate Neural Networks (CoNNs), a novel architecture designed to enhance robustness against adversarial attacks. Adversarial attacks pose significant security challenges to neural networks by manipulating input data to cause incorrect model predictions. The proposed CoNNs architecture leverages a dual-model framework where two complementary neural networks are trained in tandem, each using adversarial samples generated by the other, to cancel out adversarial effects and improve overall resilience. We evaluate CoNNs using various deep learning models, including MLP, ResNet, LSTM, and Agricultural-Informed Neural Networks (AINN), across multiple datasets such as Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR10, the data generated by Lorenz system, and agricultural N 2 O emissions data. The results demonstrate that CoNNs significantly outperform traditional single neural network in resisting both Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) and Basic Iterative Method (BIM) attacks. CoNNs maintain higher accuracy and exhibit greater stability under adversarial conditions, making them a promising approach for improving the robustness of neural network-based systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| 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