MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407394336 · doi:10.15514/ispras-2024-36(5)-9

Is AI Interpretability Safe: the Relationship between Interpretability and Security of Machine Learning Models

2024· article· en· W4407394336 on OpenAlex
Georgii Vladimirovich Sazonov, Kirill Lukyanov, Serafim Konstantinovich Boyarsky, Ilya Makarov

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institute for System Programming of RAS · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsAir Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing application of interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) models, increasing attention is being paid to issues of trust and security across all types of data. In this work, we focus on the task of graph node classification, highlighting it as one of the most challenging. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively explore the relationship between interpretability and robustness. Our experiments are conducted on datasets of citation and purchase graphs. We propose methodologies for constructing black-box attacks on graph models based on interpretation results and demonstrate how adding protection impacts the interpretability of AI models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it