REVIEW 2 cited by
Robustness, Privacy, and Generalization of 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
Signed reviews
abstract
Adversarial training can considerably robustify deep neural networks to resist adversarial attacks. However, some works suggested that adversarial training might comprise the privacy-preserving and generalization abilities. This paper establishes and quantifies the privacy-robustness trade-off and generalization-robustness trade-off in adversarial training from both theoretical and empirical aspects. We first define a notion, {\it robustified intensity} to measure the robustness of an adversarial training algorithm. This measure can be approximate empirically by an asymptotically consistent empirical estimator, {\it empirical robustified intensity}. Based on the robustified intensity, we prove that (1) adversarial training is $(\varepsilon, \delta)$-differentially private, where the magnitude of the differential privacy has a positive correlation with the robustified intensity; and (2) the generalization error of adversarial training can be upper bounded by an $\mathcal O(\sqrt{\log N}/N)$ on-average bound and an $\mathcal O(1/\sqrt{N})$ high-probability bound, both of which have positive correlations with the robustified intensity. Additionally, our generalization bounds do not explicitly rely on the parameter size which would be prohibitively large in deep learning. Systematic experiments on standard datasets, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, are in full agreement with our theories. The source code package is available at \url{https://github.com/fshp971/RPG}.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Learning from the Good Ones: Risk Profiling-Based Defenses Against Evasion Attacks on DNNs
Training anomaly detectors only on instances least vulnerable to a simulated evasion attack increases recall by up to 27.5% over indiscriminate training in a blood glucose management case study.
-
Combining Machine Learning Defenses without Conflicts
A stage-and-risk-based decision rule predicts whether pairs of ML defenses conflict, with reported balanced accuracy of 90% on eight prior combinations and 81-86% on 30 new ones.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.