Fundamental Tradeoffs in Distributionally Adversarial Training
Mohammad Mehrabi, Adel Javanmard, Ryan A. Rossi, Anup B. Rao, Tung Mai
Abstract
Despite the wide empirical success of machine learning algorithms, it is well known that these powerful algorithms can perform poorly on adversarially manipulated data. Adversarial training is among the most effective techniques to improve the robustness of models against adversarial perturbations. However, the full effect of this approach on models is not well understood. For example, while adversarial training can reduce the adversarial risk (prediction error against an adversary), it sometimes increase standard risk (generalization error when there is no adversary). Even more, such behavior is impacted by various elements of the learning problem, including the size and quality of training data, specific forms of adversarial perturbations in the input, model overparameterization, and adversary's power, among others. In this paper, we focus on distribution perturbing adversary framework wherein the adversary can change the test distribution within a neighborhood of the training data distribution. The neighborhood is defined via Wasserstein distance between distributions and the radius of the neighborhood is a measure of adversary's manipulative power. We study the tradeoff between standard risk and adversarial risk and derive the Pareto-optimal tradeoff, achievable over specific classes of models, in the infinite data limit with features dimension kept fixed. We consider three learning settings: 1) Regression with the class of linear models; 2) Binary classification under the Gaussian mixtures data model, with the class of linear classifiers; 3) Regression with the class of random features model (which can be equivalently represented as two-layer neural network with random first-layer weights). We show that a tradeoff between standard and adversarial risk is manifested in all three settings. We further characterize the Pareto-optimal tradeoff curves and discuss how a variety of factors, such as features correlation, adversary's power or the width of two-layer neural network would affect this tradeoff.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext d32d5916-5409-466e-a2b8-4fff4eb32eb1Cited by top-tier papers6
- Can Adversarial Training Be Manipulated By Non-Robust Features?Lue Tao, Lei Feng, Hongxin Wei, Jinfeng Yi et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 20 citations
- Synergy-of-Experts: Collaborate to Improve Adversarial RobustnessSen Cui, Jingfeng Zhang, Jian Liang, Bo Han et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 12 citations
- Phase Transition from Clean Training to Adversarial TrainingYue Xing, Qifan Song, Guang ChengNeurIPS 2022 · 4 citations
- Wide Two-Layer Networks can Learn from Adversarial PerturbationsSoichiro Kumano, Hiroshi Kera, Toshihiko YamasakiNeurIPS 2024 · 2 citations
- Adversarially Pretrained Transformers May Be Universally Robust In-Context LearnersSoichiro Kumano, Hiroshi Kera, Toshihiko YamasakiICLR 2026 · 2 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Better Safe Than Sorry: Preventing Delusive Adversaries with Adversarial TrainingLue Tao, Lei Feng, Jinfeng Yi, Sheng-Jun Huang et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 90 citations
- A Unified Wasserstein Distributional Robustness Framework for Adversarial TrainingAnh Tuan Bui, Trung Le, Quan Hung Tran, He Zhao et al.ICLR 2022 · 54 citations
- Adversarial Risk via Optimal Transport and Optimal CouplingsMuni Sreenivas Pydi, Varun S. JogICML 2020 · 60 citations
- Explicit Tradeoffs between Adversarial and Natural Distributional RobustnessMazda Moayeri, Kiarash Banihashem, Soheil FeiziNeurIPS 2022 · 28 citations
- Benign Overfitting in Adversarial Training of Neural NetworksYunjuan Wang, Kaibo Zhang, Raman AroraICML 2024 · 3 citations
