mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Stress-Testing ML Pipelines with Adversarial Data Corruption

arXiv 2506.01230 ↗First posted 2 Jun 2025cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Structured data-quality issues, such as missing values correlated with demographics, culturally biased labels, or systemic selection biases, routinely degrade the reliability of machine-learning pipelines. Regulators now increasingly demand evidence that high-stakes systems can withstand these realistic, interdependent errors, yet current robustness evaluations typically use random or overly simplistic corruptions, leaving worst-case scenarios unexplored. We introduce SAVAGE, a causally inspired framework that (i) formally models realistic data-quality issues through dependency graphs and flexible corruption templates, and (ii) systematically discovers corruption patterns that maximally degrade a target performance metric. SAVAGE employs a bi-level optimization approach to efficiently identify vulnerable data subpopulations and fine-tune corruption severity, treating the full ML pipeline, including preprocessing and potentially non-differentiable models, as a black box. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets and ML tasks (data cleaning, fairness-aware learning, uncertainty quantification) demonstrate that even a small fraction (around 5 %) of structured corruptions identified by SAVAGE severely impacts model performance, far exceeding random or manually crafted errors, and invalidating core assumptions of existing techniques. Thus, SAVAGE provides a practical tool for rigorous pipeline stress-testing, a benchmark for evaluating robustness methods, and actionable guidance for designing more resilient data workflows.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2025.

Builds on

20 of 54 references.

References · 20

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2017Targeted Backdoor Attacks on Deep Learning Systems Using Data Poisoningcited by 1,055
  3. 2016Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regressioncited by 668
  4. 2018Poison Frogs! Targeted Clean-Label Poisoning Attacks on Neural Networkscited by 519
  5. 2017Towards Poisoning of Deep Learning Algorithms with Back-gradient Optimizationcited by 197
  6. 2020Just How Toxic is Data Poisoning? A Unified Benchmark for Backdoor and Data Poisoning Attackscited by 116
  7. 2022Wild Patterns Reloaded: A Survey of Machine Learning Security against Training Data Poisoningcited by 94
  8. 2022Recent Advances in Bayesian Optimizationcited by 76
  9. 2020Subpopulation Data Poisoning Attackscited by 70
  10. 2021Sample Selection for Fair and Robust Trainingcited by 48
  11. 2021Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debuggingcited by 30
  12. 2022Indiscriminate Data Poisoning Attacks on Neural Networkscited by 25
8 more
  1. 2017BoostClean: Automated Error Detection and Repair for Machine Learningcited by 23
  2. 2023Exploring the Limits of Model-Targeted Indiscriminate Data Poisoning Attackscited by 23
  3. 2023Improving Fair Training under Correlation Shiftscited by 14
  4. 2021Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classificationcited by 13
  5. 2023REIN: A Comprehensive Benchmark Framework for Data Cleaning Methods in ML Pipelinescited by 10
  6. 2023DiffPrep: Differentiable Data Preprocessing Pipeline Search for Learning over Tabular Datacited by 9
  7. 2021Explaining Inference Queries with Bayesian Optimizationcited by 2
  8. 2023Investigating Labeler Bias in Face Annotation for Machine Learningcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.