Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAdversarially Robust Learning Could Leverage Computational Hardness
167
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Mohammad Mahmoody
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Over recent years, devising classification algorithms that are robust to adversarial perturbations has emerged as a challenging problem. In particular, deep neural nets (DNNs) seem to be susceptible to small imperceptible changes over test instances. However, the line of work in provable robustness, so far, has been focused on information-theoretic robustness, ruling out even the existence of any adversarial examples. In this work, we study whether there is a hope to benefit from algorithmic nature of an attacker that searches for adversarial examples, and ask whether there is any learning task for which it is possible to design classifiers that are only robust against polynomial-time adversaries. Indeed, numerous cryptographic tasks can only be secure against computationally bounded adversaries, and are indeed impossible for computationally unbounded attackers. Thus, it is natural to ask if the same strategy could help robust learning. We show that computational limitation of attackers can indeed be useful in robust learning by demonstrating the possibility of a classifier for some learning task for which computational and information theoretic adversaries of bounded perturbations have very different power. Namely, while computationally unbounded adversaries can attack successfully and find adversarial examples with small perturbation, polynomial time adversaries are unable to do so unless they can break standard cryptographic hardness assumptions. Our results, therefore, indicate that perhaps a similar approach to cryptography (relying on computational hardness) holds promise for achieving computationally robust machine learning. On the reverse directions, we also show that the existence of such learning task in which computational robustness beats information theoretic robustness requires computational hardness by implying (average-case) hardness of NP.
rate research
Read More
Making learners robust to adversarial perturbation at test time (i.e., evasion attacks) or training time (i.e., poisoning attacks) has emerged as a challenging task. It is known that for some natural settings, sublinear perturbations in the training phase or the testing phase can drastically decrease the quality of the predictions. These negative results, however, are information theoretic and only prove the existence of such successful adversarial perturbations. A natural question for these settings is whether or not we can make classifiers computationally robust to polynomial-time attacks. In this work, we prove strong barriers against achieving such envisioned computational robustness both for evasion and poisoning attacks. In particular, we show that if the test instances come from a product distribution (e.g., uniform over ${0,1}^n$ or $[0,1]^n$, or isotropic $n$-variate Gaussian) and that there is an initial constant error, then there exists a polynomial-time attack that finds adversarial examples of Hamming distance $O(sqrt n)$. For poisoning attacks, we prove that for any learning algorithm with sample complexity $m$ and any efficiently computable predicate defining some bad property $B$ for the produced hypothesis (e.g., failing on a particular test) that happens with an initial constant probability, there exist polynomial-time online poisoning attacks that tamper with $O (sqrt m)$ many examples, replace them with other correctly labeled examples, and increases the probability of the bad event $B$ to $approx 1$. Both of our poisoning and evasion attacks are black-box in how they access their corresponding components of the system (i.e., the hypothesis, the concept, and the learning algorithm) and make no further assumptions about the classifier or the learning algorithm producing the classifier.
In this work, we initiate a formal study of probably approximately correct (PAC) learning under evasion attacks, where the adversarys goal is to emph{misclassify} the adversarially perturbed sample point $widetilde{x}$, i.e., $h(widetilde{x}) eq c(widetilde{x})$, where $c$ is the ground truth concept and $h$ is the learned hypothesis. Previous work on PAC learning of adversarial examples have all modeled adversarial examples as corrupted inputs in which the goal of the adversary is to achieve $h(widetilde{x}) eq c(x)$, where $x$ is the original untampered instance. These two definitions of adversarial risk coincide for many natural distributions, such as images, but are incomparable in general. We first prove that for many theoretically natural input spaces of high dimension $n$ (e.g., isotropic Gaussian in dimension $n$ under $ell_2$ perturbations), if the adversary is allowed to apply up to a sublinear $o(||x||)$ amount of perturbations on the test instances, PAC learning requires sample complexity that is exponential in $n$. This is in contrast with results proved using the corrupted-input framework, in which the sample complexity of robust learning is only polynomially more. We then formalize hybrid attacks in which the evasion attack is preceded by a poisoning attack. This is perhaps reminiscent of trapdoor attacks in which a poisoning phase is involved as well, but the evasion phase here uses the error-region definition of risk that aims at misclassifying the perturbed instances. In this case, we show PAC learning is sometimes impossible all together, even when it is possible without the attack (e.g., due to the bounded VC dimension).
We study the computational complexity of adversarially robust proper learning of halfspaces in the distribution-independent agnostic PAC model, with a focus on $L_p$ perturbations. We give a computationally efficient learning algorithm and a nearly matching computational hardness result for this problem. An interesting implication of our findings is that the $L_{infty}$ perturbations case is provably computationally harder than the case $2 leq p < infty$.
Transfer learning, in which a network is trained on one task and re-purposed on another, is often used to produce neural network classifiers when data is scarce or full-scale training is too costly. When the goal is to produce a model that is not only accurate but also adversarially robust, data scarcity and computational limitations become even more cumbersome. We consider robust transfer learning, in which we transfer not only performance but also robustness from a source model to a target domain. We start by observing that robust networks contain robust feature extractors. By training classifiers on top of these feature extractors, we produce new models that inherit the robustness of their parent networks. We then consider the case of fine tuning a network by re-training end-to-end in the target domain. When using lifelong learning strategies, this process preserves the robustness of the source network while achieving high accuracy. By using such strategies, it is possible to produce accurate and robust models with little data, and without the cost of adversarial training. Additionally, we can improve the generalization of adversarially trained models, while maintaining their robustness.
It is common practice in deep learning to use overparameterized networks and train for as long as possible; there are numerous studies that show, both theoretically and empirically, that such practices surprisingly do not unduly harm the generalization performance of the classifier. In this paper, we empirically study this phenomenon in the setting of adversarially trained deep networks, which are trained to minimize the loss under worst-case adversarial perturbations. We find that overfitting to the training set does in fact harm robust performance to a very large degree in adversarially robust training across multiple datasets (SVHN, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and ImageNet) and perturbation models ($ell_infty$ and $ell_2$). Based upon this observed effect, we show that the performance gains of virtually all recent algorithmic improvements upon adversarial training can be matched by simply using early stopping. We also show that effects such as the double descent curve do still occur in adversarially trained models, yet fail to explain the observed overfitting. Finally, we study several classical and modern deep learning remedies for overfitting, including regularization and data augmentation, and find that no approach in isolation improves significantly upon the gains achieved by early stopping. All code for reproducing the experiments as well as pretrained model weights and training logs can be found at https://github.com/locuslab/robust_overfitting.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
