Cited by 309Machine Learning and Data ClassificationAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningText and Document Classification Technologies

Nightmare at test time: robust learning by feature deletion

Globerson, Amir, Roweis, Sam·2006·Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '06

Abstract

When constructing a classifier from labeled data, it is important not to assign too much weight to any single input feature, in order to increase the robustness of the classifier. This is particularly important in domains with nonstationary feature distributions or with input sensor failures. A common approach to achieving such robustness is to introduce regularization which spreads the weight more evenly between the features. However, this strategy is very generic, and cannot induce robustness specifically tailored to the classification task at hand. In this work, we introduce a new algorithm for avoiding single feature over-weighting by analyzing robustness using a game theoretic formalization. We develop classifiers which are optimally resilient to deletion of features in a minimax sense, and show how to construct such classifiers using quadratic programming. We illustrate the applicability of our methods on spam filtering and handwritten digit recognition tasks, where feature deletion is indeed a realistic noise model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1143844.1143889

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Classifier stability and robustness can be an issue with reweighing.

    “However, as [117,181] note, classiier stability and robustness can be an issue.”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [117]

  • Regularization as a mechanism is fairly generic, and can lead to a lack of model robustness and generalizability.

    “Aside from this, [117,313] note that regularization as a mechanism is fairly generic, and can lead to a lack of model robustness and generalizability.”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [117]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11 · Cited by 309

Authors
Globerson, A., & Roweis, S.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '06
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
2006
Pages
353-360
OpenAlex
W2114296159
Cited by
309
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.31
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Machine Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
Keywords
classifier robustness, feature deletion, minimax optimization, quadratic programming, regularization, sensor faults, spam filtering, handwritten digit recognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review