Enhancing Robustness in Incremental Learning with Adversarial Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial training is one of the most effective approaches against adversarial attacks. However, adversarial training has primarily been studied in scenarios where data for all classes is provided, with limited research conducted in the context of incremental learning where knowledge is introduced sequentially. In this study, we investigate Adversarially Robust Class Incremental Learning (ARCIL), which deals with adversarial robustness in incremental learning. We first explore a series of baselines that integrate incremental learning with existing adversarial training methods, finding that they lead to conflicts between acquiring new knowledge and retaining past knowledge. Furthermore, we discover that training new knowledge causes the disappearance of a key characteristic in robust models: a flat loss landscape in input space. To address such issues, we propose a novel and robust baseline for ARCIL, named \textbf{FL}atness-preserving \textbf{A}dversarial \textbf{I}ncremental learning for \textbf{R}obustness (\textbf{FLAIR}). Experimental results demonstrate that FLAIR significantly outperforms other baselines. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to comprehensively investigate the baselines, challenges, and solutions for ARCIL, which we believe represents a significant advance toward achieving real-world 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".