Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35668720›Full record

ArticleMachine learning2022

Adversarial concept drift detection under poisoning attacks for robust data stream mining.

Łukasz Korycki, Bartosz Krawczyk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Machine learning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Entropy Method for Decision Making with Uncertainty.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Łukasz KoryckiDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA USA.
Bartosz KrawczykDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9774-0106

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous learning from streaming data is among the most challenging topics in the contemporary machine learning. In this domain, learning algorithms must not only be able to handle massive volume of rapidly arriving data, but also adapt themselves to potential emerging changes. The phenomenon of evolving nature of data streams is known as concept drift. While there is a plethora of methods designed for detecting its occurrence, all of them assume that the drift is connected with underlying changes in the source of data. However, one must consider the possibility of a malicious injection of false data that simulates a concept drift. This adversarial setting assumes a poisoning attack that may be conducted in order to damage the underlying classification system by forcing an adaptation to false data. Existing drift detectors are not capable of differentiating between real and adversarial concept drift. In this paper, we propose a framework for robust concept drift detection in the presence of adversarial and poisoning attacks. We introduce the taxonomy for two types of adversarial concept drifts, as well as a robust trainable drift detector. It is based on the augmented restricted Boltzmann machine with improved gradient computation and energy function. We also introduce Relative Loss of Robustness-a novel measure for evaluating the performance of concept drift detectors under poisoning attacks. Extensive computational experiments, conducted on both fully and sparsely labeled data streams, prove the high robustness and efficacy of the proposed drift detection framework in adversarial scenarios.

Indexed as

Adversarial learningBoltzmann machineConcept driftData stream miningPoisoning attacksRobust machine learning

Identifiers

PMID35668720
PMCPMC9162121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.