PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Learning Transferable Robust Representations for Few-shot Learning via Multi-view Consistency

Minseon Kim, Hyeonjeong Ha, Dong Bok Lee, Sung Ju Hwang

transfer & meta learningrobust meta-learningunseen domainrobustness
75.90100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.32)
79.70100
Mimo
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)
62.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We propose a novel meta-adversarial multi-view representation learning framework that can learn transferable robustness across unseen tasks and domains with limited data.

Abstract

Despite the success on few-shot learning problems, most meta-learned models only focus on achieving good performance on clean examples and thus easily break down when given adversarially perturbed samples. While some recent works have shown that a combination of adversarial learning and meta-learning could enhance the robustness of a meta-learner against adversarial attacks, they fail to achieve generalizable adversarial robustness to unseen domains and tasks, which is the ultimate goal of meta-learning. To address this challenge, we propose a novel meta-adversarial multi-view representation learning framework with dual encoders. Specifically, we introduce the discrepancy across the two differently augmented samples of the same data instance by first updating the encoder parameters with them and further imposing a novel label-free adversarial attack to maximize their discrepancy. Then, we maximize the consistency across the views to learn transferable robust representations across domains and tasks. Through experimental validation on multiple benchmarks, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework on few-shot learning tasks from unseen domains, achieving over 10\% robust accuracy improvements against previous adversarial meta-learning baselines.

Author context

Most prolific author: 13 submissions (credibility 0.57).

Delta if applied: -0.2 percentile

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 = 28)