Why Does Robustness Reduce Superposition?

PGD adversarial training, the standard robustness method, can reduce Jacobian Frobenius norm yet worsen clean-input geometry (e.g., TDI 1.336 vs. ERM 1.093). We show this is not an implementation artifact but a theorem-level consequence of supervised learning. We prove that any encoder minimizing supervised loss must retain non-zero sensitivity along directions correlated with training labels, including directions that are nuisance at test time. This holds across proper scoring rules, architectures, and dataset sizes. We call this the geometric blind spot of supervised learning. This theorem unifies four empirical phenomena often treated separately: non-robust features, texture bias, corruption fragility, and the robustness-accuracy tradeoff. It also explains why suppressing sensitivity in one adversarial direction can redistribute sensitivity elsewhere. We introduce Trajectory Deviation Index (TDI), a diagnostic of geometric isotropy. Unlike CKA, intrinsic dimension, or Jacobian Frobenius norm alone, TDI captures the failure mode above. In our experiments, PGD attains low Frobenius norm but high TDI, while PMH attains the lowest TDI with one additional training term and no architectural changes. Across seven tasks, BERT/SST-2, and ImageNet ViT-B/16 (backbone family underlying CLIP/DINO/SAM), the blind spot is measurable and repairable. It appears at foundation-model scale, worsens with model scale and task-specific fine-tuning, and is substantially reduced by PMH. PMH also leads on non-Gaussian corruption types (blur/brightness/contrast) without corruption-specific training.

Building on a probabilistic perspective in which adversarial examples arise from the overlap between a distance-based distribution $p_{\mathrm{dis}}$ and a victim-classifier-induced distribution $p_{\mathrm{vic}}$, we start from a simple intuition: adversarial examples become harder to generate when these two distributions are pushed apart, as their overlap becomes smaller, thereby increasing robustness. This intuition naturally motivates a KL-based robustness objective. We then prove that $\mathrm{KL}(p_{\mathrm{dis}}\|p_{\mathrm{vic}})-\log Z_{\mathrm{vic}}$ is a lower bound on probabilistic robustness (PR), where $Z_{\mathrm{vic}}$ denotes the normalizing constant of $p_{\mathrm{vic}}$. Since PR is generally intractable to compute directly, maximizing this KL-based lower bound provides a tractable surrogate objective for improving PR. We further show that this objective recovers a scaled form of adversarial training, offering a probabilistic interpretation of adversarial training and a principled route to robustness improvement. We call the resulting method probabilistic adversarial training. Experiments show that it consistently improves PR, and ablation studies demonstrate that the induced scaling factor can even enhance the PR of non-probabilistic adversarial training methods.

In this paper, we challenge the prevailing view that information dependency (including rote memorization) drives training data exposure to image reconstruction attacks. We show that extensive exposure can persist without rote memorization and is instead caused by a tunable connection to adversarial robustness. We begin by presenting three surprising results: (1) recent defenses that inhibit reconstruction by Model Inversion Attacks (MIAs), which evaluate leakage under an idealized attacker, do not reduce standard measures of information dependency (HSIC); (2) models that maximally memorize their training datasets remain robust to MIA reconstruction; and (3) models trained without seeing 97% of the training pixels, where recent information-theoretic bounds give arbitrarily strong privacy guarantees under standard assumptions, can still be devastatingly reconstructed by MIA. To explain these findings, we provide causal evidence that privacy under MIA arises from what the adversarial examples literature calls ``non-robust'' features (generalizable but imperceptible and unstable features). We further show that recent MIA defenses obtain their privacy improvements by unintentionally shifting models toward such features. To establish this causal relationship, we introduce Anti Adversarial Training (AT-AT), a training regime that intentionally learns non-robust features to obtain both superior reconstruction defense and higher accuracy than state-of-the-art defenses. Our results revise the prevailing understanding of training data exposure and reveal a new privacy-robustness tradeoff.