The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Certifying Model Accuracy under Distribution Shifts
Open accessAbstract
Certified robustness in machine learning has primarily focused on adversarial perturbations of the input with a fixed attack budget for each point in the data distribution. In this work, we present provable robustness guarantees on the accuracy of a model under bounded Wasserstein shifts of the data distribution. We show that a simple procedure that randomizes the input of the model within a transformation space is provably robust to distributional shifts under the transformation. Our framework allows the datum-specific perturbation size to vary across different points in the input distribution and is general enough to include fixed-sized perturbations as well. Our certificates produce guaranteed lower bounds on the performance of the model for any (natural or adversarial) shift of the input distribution within a Wasserstein ball around the original distribution. We apply our technique to: (i) certify robustness against natural (non-adversarial) transformations of images such as color shifts, hue shifts and changes in brightness and saturation, (ii) certify robustness against adversarial shifts of the input distribution, and (iii) show provable lower bounds (hardness results) on the performance of models trained on so-called "unlearnable" datasets that have been poisoned to interfere with model training.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Neural network-based and zero-shot detectors rely on a deep net for their detection and can be vulnerable to adversarial and poisoning attacks.
“Additionally, neural network-based and zero-shot detectors rely on a deep net for their detection, and they can be vulnerable to adversarial and poisoning attacks (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Sadasivan et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).”
From Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? (2023) · cites this paper as Kumar et al., 2022
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Kumar, A., Levine, A., Goldstein, T., & Feizi, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2201.12440
- OpenAlex
- W4221143022
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1942230, CAREER)
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (60NANB20D134)
- Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
- Office of Naval Research (N00014-22-1-2271, N00014-22, N000142112557, N00014)
- Air Force Office of Scientific Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Keywords
- certified robustness, distribution shift, Wasserstein ball, data poisoning, robustness certificates
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