REVIEW 2 cited by
A Closer Look at Accuracy vs. Robustness
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
A Closer Look at Accuracy vs. Robustness
read the original abstract
Current methods for training robust networks lead to a drop in test accuracy, which has led prior works to posit that a robustness-accuracy tradeoff may be inevitable in deep learning. We take a closer look at this phenomenon and first show that real image datasets are actually separated. With this property in mind, we then prove that robustness and accuracy should both be achievable for benchmark datasets through locally Lipschitz functions, and hence, there should be no inherent tradeoff between robustness and accuracy. Through extensive experiments with robustness methods, we argue that the gap between theory and practice arises from two limitations of current methods: either they fail to impose local Lipschitzness or they are insufficiently generalized. We explore combining dropout with robust training methods and obtain better generalization. We conclude that achieving robustness and accuracy in practice may require using methods that impose local Lipschitzness and augmenting them with deep learning generalization techniques. Code available at https://github.com/yangarbiter/robust-local-lipschitz
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Toward Calibrated, Fair, and accurate Deepfake Detection
Face-Feature Tuning is a label-free logit remapping method that reduces FPR/TPR gaps across groups in deepfake detection while preserving overall accuracy.
-
Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness in Arabic Language Models
Arabic BERT-family sentiment models lose up to 92% accuracy under diacritics and 58% under conjunction attacks; paraphrase attacks cut accuracy by 76% on average, and adversarial training only partially helps.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.