mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Research Agenda: Dynamic Models to Defend Against Correlated Attacks

arXiv 1903.06293 ↗First posted 14 Mar 2019cs.LG stat.MLcited by 18

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In this article I describe a research agenda for securing machine learning models against adversarial inputs at test time. This article does not present results but instead shares some of my thoughts about where I think that the field needs to go. Modern machine learning works very well on I.I.D. data: data for which each example is drawn em independently and for which the distribution generating each example is em identical. When these assumptions are relaxed, modern machine learning can perform very poorly. When machine learning is used in contexts where security is a concern, it is desirable to design models that perform well even when the input is designed by a malicious adversary. So far most research in this direction has focused on an adversary who violates the em identical assumption, and imposes some kind of restricted worst-case distribution shift. I argue that machine learning security researchers should also address the problem of relaxing the em independence assumption and that current strategies designed for robustness to distribution shift will not do so. I recommend em dynamic models that change each time they are run as a potential solution path to this problem, and show an example of a simple attack using correlated data that can be mitigated by a simple dynamic defense. This is not intended as a real-world security measure, but as a recommendation to explore this research direction and develop more realistic defenses.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 6; 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 3.

18 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  2. 2025Ctrl-Z: Controlling AI Agents via Resamplingcited by 40
  3. 2021Fighting Gradients with Gradients: Dynamic Defenses against Adversarial Attackscited by 19
  4. 2022Blackbox Attacks via Surrogate Ensemble Searchcited by 13
  5. 2023Improving the Robustness of Transformer-based Large Language Models with Dynamic Attentioncited by 10
  6. 2021Morphence: Moving Target Defense Against Adversarial Examplescited by 9
  7. 2021Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks Learned by Transductioncited by 8
  8. 2022TESTSGD: Interpretable Testing of Neural Networks Against Subtle Group Discriminationcited by 7
  9. 2023PubDef: Defending Against Transfer Attacks From Public Modelscited by 7
  10. 2022Towards Out-of-Distribution Adversarial Robustnesscited by 5
  11. 2025Out of Control -- Why Alignment Needs Formal Control Theory (and an Alignment Control Stack)cited by 3
  12. 2021Towards Adversarial Robustness via Transductive Learningcited by 2
6 more
  1. 2022Rethinking Machine Learning Robustness via its Link with the Out-of-Distribution Problemcited by 2
  2. 2022Morphence-2.0: Evasion-Resilient Moving Target Defense Powered by Out-of-Distribution Detectioncited by 2
  3. 2024DYNASHIELD: A Black-Box Moving Target Defense for LLMs via Dynamic Decoding Customizationcited by 2
  4. 2022Addressing Data Distribution Shifts in Online Machine Learning Powered Smart City Applications Using Augmented Test-Time Adaptationcited by 1
  5. 2025Narrowing Class-Wise Robustness Gaps in Adversarial Trainingcited by 1
  6. 2023Two Heads are Actually Better than One: Towards Better Adversarial Robustness via Transduction and Rejectioncited by 0