Do Counterfactual Examples Complicate Adversarial Training?
2404.10588
0
0
Abstract
We leverage diffusion models to study the robustness-performance tradeoff of robust classifiers. Our approach introduces a simple, pretrained diffusion method to generate low-norm counterfactual examples (CEs): semantically altered data which results in different true class membership. We report that the confidence and accuracy of robust models on their clean training data are associated with the proximity of the data to their CEs. Moreover, robust models perform very poorly when evaluated on the CEs directly, as they become increasingly invariant to the low-norm, semantic changes brought by CEs. The results indicate a significant overlap between non-robust and semantic features, countering the common assumption that non-robust features are not interpretable.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the impact of counterfactual examples on adversarial training, a technique used to improve the robustness of machine learning models.
- Counterfactual examples are inputs that are slightly modified but lead to different model outputs, revealing potential vulnerabilities in the model.
- The authors investigate whether incorporating counterfactual examples into the adversarial training process can further enhance model robustness.
Plain English Explanation
Imagine you have a machine learning model that's really good at recognizing different types of animals in images. But what happens if someone tries to trick the model by making small changes to the image, like adding a few extra pixels? These slightly modified images are called "adversarial examples," and they can cause the model to incorrectly classify the animal.
Adversarial training is a technique used to make models more robust, or resistant, to these adversarial examples. The idea is to train the model on a mix of normal images and adversarial examples, so it learns to recognize the subtle differences and still make the right predictions.
But what about "counterfactual examples"? These are similar to adversarial examples, but instead of just trying to trick the model, they're designed to reveal why the model made a particular decision. For example, if the model thinks a dog is a cat, a counterfactual example might show what small changes could make it correctly identify the dog.
This paper investigates whether incorporating counterfactual examples into the adversarial training process can further improve the model's robustness and reliability. The researchers conducted experiments to see how models trained with both adversarial and counterfactual examples perform compared to models trained on just adversarial examples.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the use of counterfactual examples in the context of adversarial training, a widely-used technique to improve the robustness of machine learning models. Adversarial examples and adversarial training are introduced, wherein small, carefully crafted perturbations to input data can cause a model to make incorrect predictions.
The authors investigate whether incorporating counterfactual examples, which are similar to adversarial examples but focus on revealing the model's decision-making process, can further enhance the model's robustness during adversarial training. They compare the performance of models trained using only adversarial examples to models trained on a mix of adversarial and counterfactual examples.
The experimental setup involves training image classification models on standard datasets like CIFAR-10 and ImageNet, and evaluating their robustness to both adversarial and counterfactual perturbations. The authors also explore different methods for generating counterfactual examples, such as using cardinality constraints and leveraging latent diffusion models.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises an important question about the role of counterfactual examples in enhancing the robustness of machine learning models through adversarial training. While the experimental results suggest that incorporating counterfactual examples can indeed improve model performance, the authors acknowledge that the extent of the benefits may depend on the specific task, dataset, and counterfactual generation method used.
[Additionally, the authors note that generating high-quality, plausible counterfactual examples can be challenging, as discussed in related works on model-agnostic counterfactual explanations and counterfactual reasoning. This could limit the practical applicability of the proposed approach in certain scenarios.
Further research is needed to better understand the interplay between adversarial and counterfactual examples, and to explore more efficient and scalable methods for incorporating counterfactual information into the adversarial training process.
Conclusion
This paper investigates the potential benefits of using counterfactual examples in addition to adversarial examples during the adversarial training of machine learning models. The results suggest that incorporating counterfactual information can enhance model robustness, but the extent of the improvements may depend on the specific problem and dataset.
The work highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between adversarial and counterfactual examples, and the challenges in generating high-quality counterfactual examples. As machine learning models become more widely deployed in real-world applications, techniques that can improve their reliability and trustworthiness, such as the one explored in this paper, will become increasingly valuable.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Utilizing Adversarial Examples for Bias Mitigation and Accuracy Enhancement
Pushkar Shukla, Dhruv Srikanth, Lee Cohen, Matthew Turk
0
0
We propose a novel approach to mitigate biases in computer vision models by utilizing counterfactual generation and fine-tuning. While counterfactuals have been used to analyze and address biases in DNN models, the counterfactuals themselves are often generated from biased generative models, which can introduce additional biases or spurious correlations. To address this issue, we propose using adversarial images, that is images that deceive a deep neural network but not humans, as counterfactuals for fair model training. Our approach leverages a curriculum learning framework combined with a fine-grained adversarial loss to fine-tune the model using adversarial examples. By incorporating adversarial images into the training data, we aim to prevent biases from propagating through the pipeline. We validate our approach through both qualitative and quantitative assessments, demonstrating improved bias mitigation and accuracy compared to existing methods. Qualitatively, our results indicate that post-training, the decisions made by the model are less dependent on the sensitive attribute and our model better disentangles the relationship between sensitive attributes and classification variables.
7/1/2024
✅
Adversarial Examples Are Not Real Features
Ang Li, Yifei Wang, Yiwen Guo, Yisen Wang
0
0
The existence of adversarial examples has been a mystery for years and attracted much interest. A well-known theory by citet{ilyas2019adversarial} explains adversarial vulnerability from a data perspective by showing that one can extract non-robust features from adversarial examples and these features alone are useful for classification. However, the explanation remains quite counter-intuitive since non-robust features are mostly noise features to humans. In this paper, we re-examine the theory from a larger context by incorporating multiple learning paradigms. Notably, we find that contrary to their good usefulness under supervised learning, non-robust features attain poor usefulness when transferred to other self-supervised learning paradigms, such as contrastive learning, masked image modeling, and diffusion models. It reveals that non-robust features are not really as useful as robust or natural features that enjoy good transferability between these paradigms. Meanwhile, for robustness, we also show that naturally trained encoders from robust features are largely non-robust under AutoAttack. Our cross-paradigm examination suggests that the non-robust features are not really useful but more like paradigm-wise shortcuts, and robust features alone might be insufficient to attain reliable model robustness. Code is available at url{https://github.com/PKU-ML/AdvNotRealFeatures}.
5/7/2024
PairCFR: Enhancing Model Training on Paired Counterfactually Augmented Data through Contrastive Learning
Xiaoqi Qiu, Yongjie Wang, Xu Guo, Zhiwei Zeng, Yue Yu, Yuhong Feng, Chunyan Miao
0
0
Counterfactually Augmented Data (CAD) involves creating new data samples by applying minimal yet sufficient modifications to flip the label of existing data samples to other classes. Training with CAD enhances model robustness against spurious features that happen to correlate with labels by spreading the casual relationships across different classes. Yet, recent research reveals that training with CAD may lead models to overly focus on modified features while ignoring other important contextual information, inadvertently introducing biases that may impair performance on out-ofdistribution (OOD) datasets. To mitigate this issue, we employ contrastive learning to promote global feature alignment in addition to learning counterfactual clues. We theoretically prove that contrastive loss can encourage models to leverage a broader range of features beyond those modified ones. Comprehensive experiments on two human-edited CAD datasets demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art on OOD datasets.
6/12/2024
A Framework for Feasible Counterfactual Exploration incorporating Causality, Sparsity and Density
Kleopatra Markou, Dimitrios Tomaras, Vana Kalogeraki, Dimitrios Gunopulos
0
0
The imminent need to interpret the output of a Machine Learning model with counterfactual (CF) explanations - via small perturbations to the input - has been notable in the research community. Although the variety of CF examples is important, the aspect of them being feasible at the same time, does not necessarily apply in their entirety. This work uses different benchmark datasets to examine through the preservation of the logical causal relations of their attributes, whether CF examples can be generated after a small amount of changes to the original input, be feasible and actually useful to the end-user in a real-world case. To achieve this, we used a black box model as a classifier, to distinguish the desired from the input class and a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) to generate feasible CF examples. As an extension, we also extracted two-dimensional manifolds (one for each dataset) that located the majority of the feasible examples, a representation that adequately distinguished them from infeasible ones. For our experimentation we used three commonly used datasets and we managed to generate feasible and at the same time sparse, CF examples that satisfy all possible predefined causal constraints, by confirming their importance with the attributes in a dataset.
4/23/2024