PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

SMAAT: Scalable Manifold-Aware Adversarial Training for Large Language Models

Enes Altinisik, Safa Messaoud, Husrev Taha Sencar, Hassan Sajjad, Sanjay Chawla

general MLadversarial trainingrobustnesssentiment analysislarge language models
70.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
63.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
83.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Adversarial Training (AT), the method of finetuning a deep learning model with adversarially generated examples, is the most reliable form of making a model robust against future adversarial perturbations. However, AT is substantially expensive than standard training as it requires several full forward and backward passes to compute adversarial examples. In this paper, we introduce SMAAT, an efficient AT method that uses only adversarial examples generated in the last layer to finetune encoder-based large language models. The basis of our approach are the following three observations (i) the intrinsic dimensionality of the embedding space spanned by different layers of a deep model is substantially lower than the explicit dimensionality of the token embeddings; (ii) Encoder-based language models exhibit a monotonic behavior in their intrinsic dimensionality, i.e., deeper layers (closer to the output) have much lower intrinsic dimensionality than the shallow layers (closer to the input); (iii) off-manifold examples tend to persist across layers, i.e., an image of an off-manifold example generated in a shallow layer continues to remain off-manifold with respect to the embedding space of the later layers. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of SMAAT and show that it increases robustness by 8.6%, 15.7%, and 28.8% for BERT and 6.0%, 5.8%, and 19.0% for RoBERTa over the previous state-of-the-art results on AGNEWS, IMDB, and YELP, respectively. These improvements are achieved while maintaining comparable generalization and reducing the computational cost to approximately 1/3 to 1/4 of the GPU times required by the Projected Gradient Descent algorithm.

Author context

Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)