You Don't Need Robust Machine Learning to Manage Adversarial Attack Risks

Abstract

The robustness of modern machine learning (ML) models has become an increasing concern within the community. The ability to subvert a model into making errant predictions using seemingly inconsequential changes to input is startling, as is our lack of success in building models robust to this concern. Existing research shows progress, but current mitigations come with a high cost and simultaneously reduce the model's accuracy. However, such trade-offs may not be necessary when other design choices could subvert the risk. In this survey we review the current literature on attacks and their real-world occurrences, or limited evidence thereof, to critically evaluate the real-world risks of adversarial machine learning (AML) for the average entity. This is done with an eye toward how one would then mitigate these attacks in practice, the risks for production deployment, and how those risks could be managed. In doing so we elucidate that many AML threats do not warrant the cost and trade-offs of robustness due to a low likelihood of attack or availability of superior non-ML mitigations. Our analysis also recommends cases where an actor should be concerned about AML to the degree where robust ML models are necessary for a complete deployment.