Papers › Adversarial Robustness Guarantees for Random Deep Neural Networks

Adversarial Robustness Guarantees for Random Deep Neural Networks

13 Apr 2020arXiv:2004.05923archive 2025-07-28

Giacomo De Palma, Bobak T. Kiani, Seth Lloyd

The reliability of deep learning algorithms is fundamentally challenged by the existence of adversarial examples, which are incorrectly classified inputs that are extremely close to a correctly classified input. We explore the properties of adversarial examples for deep neural networks with random weights and biases, and prove that for any p≥1, the ℓᵖ distance of any given input from the classification boundary scales as one over the square root of the dimension of the input times the ℓᵖ norm of the input. The results are based on the recently proved equivalence between Gaussian processes and deep neural networks in the limit of infinite width of the hidden layers, and are validated with experiments on both random deep neural networks and deep neural networks trained on the MNIST and CIFAR10 datasets. The results constitute a fundamental advance in the theoretical understanding of adversarial examples, and open the way to a thorough theoretical characterization of the relation between network architecture and robustness to adversarial perturbations.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 3 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from bkiani/Adversarial-robustness-guarantees-for-random-deep-neural-networks. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections