PreprintCited by 22Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Improved Certified Defenses against Data Poisoning with (Deterministic) Finite Aggregation

Open access
Wang, Wenxiao, Levine, Alexander, Feizi, Soheil·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Data poisoning attacks aim at manipulating model behaviors through distorting training data. Previously, an aggregation-based certified defense, Deep Partition Aggregation (DPA), was proposed to mitigate this threat. DPA predicts through an aggregation of base classifiers trained on disjoint subsets of data, thus restricting its sensitivity to dataset distortions. In this work, we propose an improved certified defense against general poisoning attacks, namely Finite Aggregation. In contrast to DPA, which directly splits the training set into disjoint subsets, our method first splits the training set into smaller disjoint subsets and then combines duplicates of them to build larger (but not disjoint) subsets for training base classifiers. This reduces the worst-case impacts of poison samples and thus improves certified robustness bounds. In addition, we offer an alternative view of our method, bridging the designs of deterministic and stochastic aggregation-based certified defenses. Empirically, our proposed Finite Aggregation consistently improves certificates on MNIST, CIFAR-10, and GTSRB, boosting certified fractions by up to 3.05%, 3.87% and 4.77%, respectively, while keeping the same clean accuracies as DPA's, effectively establishing a new state of the art in (pointwise) certified robustness against data poisoning.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2202.02628

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Neural network-based detectors are vulnerable to adversarial and poisoning attacks.

    “On the other hand, neural network-based detectors are vulnerable to adversarial and poisoning attacks [Goodfellow et al., 2015;Wang et al., 2022;Pu et al., 2023a].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, W., Levine, A., & Feizi, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4221151475
Cited by
22
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1942230, CAREER)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (60NANB20D134)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-22-1-2271, N00014-22, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
data poisoning, certified robustness, stochastic aggregation, neural network security

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