Paper detail

Towards an Intrinsic Definition of Robustness for a Classifier

The robustness of classifiers has become a question of paramount importance in the past few years. Indeed, it has been shown that state-of-the-art deep learning architectures can easily be fooled with imperceptible changes to their inputs. Therefore, finding good measures of robustness of a trained classifier is a key issue in the field. In this paper, we point out that averaging the radius of robustness of samples in a validation set is a statistically weak measure. We propose instead to weight the importance of samples depending on their difficulty. We motivate the proposed score by a theoretical case study using logistic regression, where we show that the proposed score is independent of the choice of the samples it is evaluated upon. We also empirically demonstrate the ability of the proposed score to measure robustness of classifiers with little dependence on the choice of samples in more complex settings, including deep convolutional neural networks and real datasets.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.