mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Adversarial Targeted Forgetting in Regularization and Generative Based Continual Learning Models

arXiv 2102.08355 ↗First posted 16 Feb 2021cs.LG cs.CRcited by 9

On the map: LLM safety and security → Backdoor and data poisoning attacks

Abstract (arXiv)

Continual (or "incremental") learning approaches are employed when additional knowledge or tasks need to be learned from subsequent batches or from streaming data. However these approaches are typically adversary agnostic, i.e., they do not consider the possibility of a malicious attack. In our prior work, we explored the vulnerabilities of Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC) to the perceptible misinformation. We now explore the vulnerabilities of other regularization-based as well as generative replay-based continual learning algorithms, and also extend the attack to imperceptible misinformation. We show that an intelligent adversary can take advantage of a continual learning algorithm's capabilities of retaining existing knowledge over time, and force it to learn and retain deliberately introduced misinformation. To demonstrate this vulnerability, we inject backdoor attack samples into the training data. These attack samples constitute the misinformation, allowing the attacker to capture control of the model at test time. We evaluate the extent of this vulnerability on both rotated and split benchmark variants of the MNIST dataset under two important domain and class incremental learning scenarios. We show that the adversary can create a "false memory" about any task by inserting carefully-designed backdoor samples to the test instances of that task thereby controlling the amount of forgetting of any task of its choosing. Perhaps most importantly, we show this vulnerability to be very acute and damaging: the model memory can be easily compromised with the addition of backdoor samples into as little as 1% of the training data, even when the misinformation is imperceptible to human eye.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Backdoor and data poisoning attacks, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 17 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2021.

Builds on

17 of 28 references.

References · 17

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  2. 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,718
  3. 2013Auto-Encoding Variational Bayescited by 3,980
  4. 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,976
  5. 2017Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learningcited by 1,871
  6. 2017Continual Learning with Deep Generative Replaycited by 1,152
  7. 2017Memory Aware Synapses: Learning what (not) to forgetcited by 1,094
  8. 2017BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chaincited by 1,052
  9. 2017Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Timecited by 686
  10. 2019Three scenarios for continual learningcited by 610
  11. 2018Progress & Compress: A scalable framework for continual learningcited by 516
  12. 2018Learning to Learn without Forgetting by Maximizing Transfer and Minimizing Interferencecited by 511
5 more
  1. 2018Poison Frogs! Targeted Clean-Label Poisoning Attacks on Neural Networkscited by 500
  2. 2018Generative replay with feedback connections as a general strategy for continual learningcited by 103
  3. 2018Continual Classification Learning Using Generative Modelscited by 28
  4. 2018Attack Strength vs. Detectability Dilemma in Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 14
  5. 2020Targeted Forgetting and False Memory Formation in Continual Learners through Adversarial Backdoor Attackscited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

9 papers.