Stress-Testing ML Pipelines with Adversarial Data Corruption
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
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2017Targeted Backdoor Attacks on Deep Learning Systems Using Data Poisoningcited by 1,055
- 2016Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regressioncited by 668
- 2018Poison Frogs! Targeted Clean-Label Poisoning Attacks on Neural Networkscited by 519
- 2017Towards Poisoning of Deep Learning Algorithms with Back-gradient Optimizationcited by 197
- 2020Just How Toxic is Data Poisoning? A Unified Benchmark for Backdoor and Data Poisoning Attackscited by 116
- 2022Wild Patterns Reloaded: A Survey of Machine Learning Security against Training Data Poisoningcited by 94
- 2022Recent Advances in Bayesian Optimizationcited by 76
- 2020Subpopulation Data Poisoning Attackscited by 70
- 2021Sample Selection for Fair and Robust Trainingcited by 48
- 2021Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debuggingcited by 30
- 2022Indiscriminate Data Poisoning Attacks on Neural Networkscited by 25
8 more
- 2017BoostClean: Automated Error Detection and Repair for Machine Learningcited by 23
- 2023Exploring the Limits of Model-Targeted Indiscriminate Data Poisoning Attackscited by 23
- 2023Improving Fair Training under Correlation Shiftscited by 14
- 2021Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classificationcited by 13
- 2023REIN: A Comprehensive Benchmark Framework for Data Cleaning Methods in ML Pipelinescited by 10
- 2023DiffPrep: Differentiable Data Preprocessing Pipeline Search for Learning over Tabular Datacited by 9
- 2021Explaining Inference Queries with Bayesian Optimizationcited by 2
- 2023Investigating Labeler Bias in Face Annotation for Machine Learningcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.