PreprintCited by 37Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsMachine Learning and Data Classification

An Empirical Evaluation on Robustness and Uncertainty of Regularization Methods

Open access
Chun, Sanghyuk, Oh, Seong Joon, Yun, Sangdoo, Han, Dongyoon, Choe, Junsuk, Yoo, Youngjoon·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Despite apparent human-level performances of deep neural networks (DNN), they behave fundamentally differently from humans. They easily change predictions when small corruptions such as blur and noise are applied on the input (lack of robustness), and they often produce confident predictions on out-of-distribution samples (improper uncertainty measure). While a number of researches have aimed to address those issues, proposed solutions are typically expensive and complicated (e.g. Bayesian inference and adversarial training). Meanwhile, many simple and cheap regularization methods have been developed to enhance the generalization of classifiers. Such regularization methods have largely been overlooked as baselines for addressing the robustness and uncertainty issues, as they are not specifically designed for that. In this paper, we provide extensive empirical evaluations on the robustness and uncertainty estimates of image classifiers (CIFAR-100 and ImageNet) trained with state-of-the-art regularization methods. Furthermore, experimental results show that certain regularization methods can serve as strong baseline methods for robustness and uncertainty estimation of DNNs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2003.03879

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There are a limited number of studies on quantifying uncertainties in GNNs/GCNs.

    “Our findings reveal that even though Bayesian-based GNNs/GCNs (Graph Convolutional Networks) [280], [593], [594], [595] and Deep graph BO [596] have shown promising outcomes for quantifying uncertainties in GNNs/GCNs, but there are a limited number of studies in this research domain.”

    From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [594]

    The Introduction (pp. 1–2) discusses uncertainty estimation in DNNs and says the effects of certain regularization techniques have rarely been investigated. The paper’s stated experiments concern image classifiers, not GNNs or GCNs. Searches for graph neural networks, graph convolutional networks, and Bayesian graph uncertainty found no passage addressing how many studies quantify uncertainty in GNNs/GCNs. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Geirhos, R., Rubisch, P., Michaelis, C., Bethge, M., Wichmann, F. A., and Brendel, W. Imagenet-trained cnns are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12231 , 2018a. · arXiv
  2. Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., and Szegedy, C. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2015.
  3. Gulrajani, I., Ahmed, F., Arjovsky, M., Dumoulin, V., and Courville, A. C. Improved training of wasserstein gans. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 5767-5777, 2017.
  4. Hendrycks, D. and Dietterich, T. Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=HJz6tiCqYm .
  5. Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Guyon, I., Luxburg, U. V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., and Garnett, R. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pp. 6402-6413. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017.
  6. Madry, A., Makelov, A., Schmidt, L., Tsipras, D., and Vladu, A. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06083 , 2017. · arXiv
  7. Szegedy, C., Zaremba, W., Sutskever, I., Bruna, J., Erhan, D., Goodfellow, I., and Fergus, R. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199 , 2013. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chun, S., Oh, S. J., Yun, S., Han, D., Choe, J., & Yoo, Y.
Affiliations
Naver (South Korea) (KR)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3009090315
Cited by
37
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
regularization methods, robustness, uncertainty estimation, adversarial robustness, out-of-distribution generalization, image classifiers, deep neural network, CIFAR-100, ImageNet, noise robustness

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