<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On the Paradox of Certified Training · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.06700/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.06700/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On the Paradox of Certified Training — mentioned by dpaleka</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28648759</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2102.06700:28648759</guid><pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:02:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;A weird property of the described abstractions is that as you go tighter (interval -&amp;gt; zonotope -&amp;gt; polyhedra), the trained networks counterintuitively become less robust. Why does more precision in verification hurt training? A recent work not mentioned in the last chapter &amp;quot;Adversarial Training with Abstraction&amp;quot; is [1], which kind of explains this issue using the notions of continuity and sensitivity of the abstractions. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06700&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2102.06700/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
