The Adversarial Conditioning Paradox: Why Attacked Inputs Are More Stable, Not Less
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial attacks on NLP systems are designed to find inputs that fool models while minimizing perceptible changes, making them difficult to detect using similarity-based methods. We investigate whether Jacobian conditioning analysis can provide an orthogonal detection signal. Surprisingly, we find that adversarial inputs exhibit systematically lower condition numbers at early transformer layers—the opposite of our initial hypothesis that attacks exploit unstable, ill-conditioned regions. This “adversarial conditioning paradox” replicates across multiple attack types: TextFooler (AUC = 0.72, p = 0.001), DeepWordBug (AUC = 0.75, p = 0.001), and directionally for PWWS (AUC = 0.59, p = 0.29). The effect holds for both word-level and character-level perturbations, while embedding cosine distance fails completely (AUC ≈ 0.25). We propose that adversarial attacks succeed by finding wellconditioned directions that cross decision boundaries—smooth paths to misclassification rather than chaotic exploitation of instability. Our findings open new directions for adversarial detection using internal geometric properties invisible to embedding-based methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".