Robustness Analysis of AI Models in Critical Energy Systems

This paper analyzes the robustness of state-of-the-art AI-based models for power grid operations under the $N-1$ security criterion. While these models perform well in regular grid settings, our results highlight a significant loss in accuracy following the disconnection of a line.%under this security criterion. Using graph theory-based analysis, we demonstrate the impact of node connectivity on this loss. Our findings emphasize the need for practical scenario considerations in developing AI methodologies for critical infrastructure.

Constrained Adaptive Attack: Effective Adversarial Attack Against Deep Neural Networks for Tabular Data

State-of-the-art deep learning models for tabular data have recently achieved acceptable performance to be deployed in industrial settings. However, the robustness of these models remains scarcely explored. Contrary to computer vision, there are no effective attacks to properly evaluate the adversarial robustness of deep tabular models due to intrinsic properties of tabular data, such as categorical features, immutability, and feature relationship constraints. To fill this gap, we first propose CAPGD, a gradient attack that overcomes the failures of existing gradient attacks with adaptive mechanisms. This new attack does not require parameter tuning and further degrades the accuracy, up to 81% points compared to the previous gradient attacks. Second, we design CAA, an efficient evasion attack that combines our CAPGD attack and MOEVA, the best search-based attack. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our attacks on five architectures and four critical use cases. Our empirical study demonstrates that CAA outperforms all existing attacks in 17 over the 20 settings, and leads to a drop in the accuracy by up to 96.1% points and 21.9% points compared to CAPGD and MOEVA respectively while being up to five times faster than MOEVA. Given the effectiveness and efficiency of our new attacks, we argue that they should become the minimal test for any new defense or robust architectures in tabular machine learning.

Enhancing Fault Detection for Large Language Models via Mutation-Based Confidence Smoothing

Large language models (LLMs) achieved great success in multiple application domains and attracted huge attention from different research communities recently. Unfortunately, even for the best LLM, there still exist many faults that LLM cannot correctly predict. Such faults will harm the usability of LLMs. How to quickly reveal them in LLMs is important, but challenging. The reasons are twofold, 1) the heavy labeling effort for preparing the test data, and 2) accessing closed-source LLMs such as GPT4 is money-required. To handle this problem, in the traditional deep learning testing field, test selection methods have been proposed for efficiently testing deep learning models by prioritizing faults. However, the usefulness of these methods on LLMs is unclear and under exploration. In this paper, we first study the effectiveness of existing fault detection methods for LLMs. Experimental results on four different tasks~(including both code tasks and natural language processing tasks) and four LLMs (e.g., LLaMA and GPT4) demonstrated that existing fault detection methods cannot perform well on LLMs (e.g., seven out of eight methods perform worse than random selection on LLaMA). To enhance existing fault detection methods, we propose MuCS, a prompt Mutation-based prediction Confidence Smoothing method for LLMs. Concretely, we mutate the prompts and compute the average prediction confidence of all mutants as the input of fault detection methods. The results show that our proposed solution significantly enhances existing methods with the improvement of test relative coverage by up to 97.64%.

Importance Guided Data Augmentation for Neural-Based Code Understanding

Pre-trained code models lead the era of code intelligence. Many models have been designed with impressive performance recently. However, one important problem, data augmentation for code data that automatically helps developers prepare training data lacks study in the field of code learning. In this paper, we introduce a general data augmentation framework, GenCode, to enhance the training of code understanding models. GenCode follows a generation-and-selection paradigm to prepare useful training codes. Specifically, it uses code transformation techniques to generate new code candidates first and then selects important ones as the training data by importance metrics. To evaluate the effectiveness of GenCode with a general importance metric -- loss value, we conduct experiments on four code understanding tasks (e.g., code clone detection) and three pre-trained code models (e.g., CodeT5). Compared to the state-of-the-art (SOTA) code augmentation method, MixCode, GenCode produces code models with 2.92% higher accuracy and 4.90% robustness on average.

How Realistic Is Your Synthetic Data? Constraining Deep Generative Models for Tabular Data

Deep Generative Models (DGMs) have been shown to be powerful tools for generating tabular data, as they have been increasingly able to capture the complex distributions that characterize them. However, to generate realistic synthetic data, it is often not enough to have a good approximation of their distribution, as it also requires compliance with constraints that encode essential background knowledge on the problem at hand. In this paper, we address this limitation and show how DGMs for tabular data can be transformed into Constrained Deep Generative Models (C-DGMs), whose generated samples are guaranteed to be compliant with the given constraints. This is achieved by automatically parsing the constraints and transforming them into a Constraint Layer (CL) seamlessly integrated with the DGM. Our extensive experimental analysis with various DGMs and tasks reveals that standard DGMs often violate constraints, some exceeding $95\%$ non-compliance, while their corresponding C-DGMs are never non-compliant. Then, we quantitatively demonstrate that, at training time, C-DGMs are able to exploit the background knowledge expressed by the constraints to outperform their standard counterparts with up to $6.5\%$ improvement in utility and detection. Further, we show how our CL does not necessarily need to be integrated at training time, as it can be also used as a guardrail at inference time, still producing some improvements in the overall performance of the models. Finally, we show that our CL does not hinder the sample generation time of the models.

Constrained Adaptive Attacks: Realistic Evaluation of Adversarial Examples and Robust Training of Deep Neural Networks for Tabular Data

State-of-the-art deep learning models for tabular data have recently achieved acceptable performance to be deployed in industrial settings. However, the robustness of these models remains scarcely explored. Contrary to computer vision, there is to date no realistic protocol to properly evaluate the adversarial robustness of deep tabular models due to intrinsic properties of tabular data such as categorical features, immutability, and feature relationship constraints. To fill this gap, we propose CAA, the first efficient evasion attack for constrained tabular deep learning models. CAA is an iterative parameter-free attack that combines gradient and search attacks to generate adversarial examples under constraints. We leverage CAA to build a benchmark of deep tabular models across three popular use cases: credit scoring, phishing and botnet attacks detection. Our benchmark supports ten threat models with increasing capabilities of the attacker, and reflects real-world attack scenarios for each use case. Overall, our results demonstrate how domain knowledge, adversarial training, and attack budgets impact the robustness assessment of deep tabular models and provide security practitioners with a set of recommendations to improve the robustness of deep tabular models against various evasion attack scenarios.

Hazards in Deep Learning Testing: Prevalence, Impact and Recommendations

Much research on Machine Learning testing relies on empirical studies that evaluate and show their potential. However, in this context empirical results are sensitive to a number of parameters that can adversely impact the results of the experiments and potentially lead to wrong conclusions (Type I errors, i.e., incorrectly rejecting the Null Hypothesis). To this end, we survey the related literature and identify 10 commonly adopted empirical evaluation hazards that may significantly impact experimental results. We then perform a sensitivity analysis on 30 influential studies that were published in top-tier SE venues, against our hazard set and demonstrate their criticality. Our findings indicate that all 10 hazards we identify have the potential to invalidate experimental findings, such as those made by the related literature, and should be handled properly. Going a step further, we propose a point set of 10 good empirical practices that has the potential to mitigate the impact of the hazards. We believe our work forms the first step towards raising awareness of the common pitfalls and good practices within the software engineering community and hopefully contribute towards setting particular expectations for empirical research in the field of deep learning testing.

Evaluating the Robustness of Test Selection Methods for Deep Neural Networks

Testing deep learning-based systems is crucial but challenging due to the required time and labor for labeling collected raw data. To alleviate the labeling effort, multiple test selection methods have been proposed where only a subset of test data needs to be labeled while satisfying testing requirements. However, we observe that such methods with reported promising results are only evaluated under simple scenarios, e.g., testing on original test data. This brings a question to us: are they always reliable? In this paper, we explore when and to what extent test selection methods fail for testing. Specifically, first, we identify potential pitfalls of 11 selection methods from top-tier venues based on their construction. Second, we conduct a study on five datasets with two model architectures per dataset to empirically confirm the existence of these pitfalls. Furthermore, we demonstrate how pitfalls can break the reliability of these methods. Concretely, methods for fault detection suffer from test data that are: 1) correctly classified but uncertain, or 2) misclassified but confident. Remarkably, the test relative coverage achieved by such methods drops by up to 86.85%. On the other hand, methods for performance estimation are sensitive to the choice of intermediate-layer output. The effectiveness of such methods can be even worse than random selection when using an inappropriate layer.

How do humans perceive adversarial text? A reality check on the validity and naturalness of word-based adversarial attacks

Natural Language Processing (NLP) models based on Machine Learning (ML) are susceptible to adversarial attacks -- malicious algorithms that imperceptibly modify input text to force models into making incorrect predictions. However, evaluations of these attacks ignore the property of imperceptibility or study it under limited settings. This entails that adversarial perturbations would not pass any human quality gate and do not represent real threats to human-checked NLP systems. To bypass this limitation and enable proper assessment (and later, improvement) of NLP model robustness, we have surveyed 378 human participants about the perceptibility of text adversarial examples produced by state-of-the-art methods. Our results underline that existing text attacks are impractical in real-world scenarios where humans are involved. This contrasts with previous smaller-scale human studies, which reported overly optimistic conclusions regarding attack success. Through our work, we hope to position human perceptibility as a first-class success criterion for text attacks, and provide guidance for research to build effective attack algorithms and, in turn, design appropriate defence mechanisms.

Going Further: Flatness at the Rescue of Early Stopping for Adversarial Example Transferability

Transferability is the property of adversarial examples to be misclassified by other models than the surrogate model for which they were crafted. Previous research has shown that transferability is substantially increased when the training of the surrogate model has been early stopped. A common hypothesis to explain this is that the later training epochs are when models learn the non-robust features that adversarial attacks exploit. Hence, an early stopped model is more robust (hence, a better surrogate) than fully trained models. We demonstrate that the reasons why early stopping improves transferability lie in the side effects it has on the learning dynamics of the model. We first show that early stopping benefits transferability even on models learning from data with non-robust features. We then establish links between transferability and the exploration of the loss landscape in the parameter space, on which early stopping has an inherent effect. More precisely, we observe that transferability peaks when the learning rate decays, which is also the time at which the sharpness of the loss significantly drops. This leads us to propose RFN, a new approach for transferability that minimizes loss sharpness during training in order to maximize transferability. We show that by searching for large flat neighborhoods, RFN always improves over early stopping (by up to 47 points of transferability rate) and is competitive to (if not better than) strong state-of-the-art baselines.