Pith. sign in

REVIEW

To be Robust or to be Fair: Towards Fairness in Adversarial Training

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2010.06121 v2 pith:E6B25MA6 submitted 2020-10-13 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords adversarialtrainingaccuracyalgorithmsmodelsrobustclassclean
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Adversarial training algorithms have been proved to be reliable to improve machine learning models' robustness against adversarial examples. However, we find that adversarial training algorithms tend to introduce severe disparity of accuracy and robustness between different groups of data. For instance, a PGD adversarially trained ResNet18 model on CIFAR-10 has 93% clean accuracy and 67% PGD l-infty-8 robust accuracy on the class "automobile" but only 65% and 17% on the class "cat". This phenomenon happens in balanced datasets and does not exist in naturally trained models when only using clean samples. In this work, we empirically and theoretically show that this phenomenon can happen under general adversarial training algorithms which minimize DNN models' robust errors. Motivated by these findings, we propose a Fair-Robust-Learning (FRL) framework to mitigate this unfairness problem when doing adversarial defenses. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of FRL.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools