It is argued that future robustness evaluations should report vanilla-referenced accuracy gaps as a standard component, and demonstrated that the robustness-accuracy trade-off is substantially larger than what is typically conveyed by individual papers.
Abstract
Adversarial robustness research has produced hundreds of defended models over the past decade, yet the literature almost universally reports robustness results in isolation: standard (clean) accuracy and adversarial accuracy of the robust model are shown, but the gap to the corresponding vanilla model is rarely quantified. We introduce VanillaBench, a systematic benchmark that makes this gap explicit. For every adversarially-trained model catalogued by RobustBench across four threat models, we compute the accuracy difference against multiple vanilla references from Papers with Code, computed over both all entries and no-extra-data entries, the best vanilla model as of the robust model's publication year, and an architecture-matched baseline. Across all 186 robust models, the mean delta clean relative to the best vanilla model ranges from -7.7 to -29.5 percentage points, and even the single most robust model per track still trails its temporal vanilla counterpart by 4.0-21.0 points. The architecture-matched comparison, which isolates the effect of adversarial training from architectural differences, reveals a mean gap of -3.5 to -17.5 points. Restricting this architecture-matched comparison to models whose vanilla accuracy is known for the exact same architecture, rather than approximated from a related one, narrows the gap to -4.0 to -14.0 points. These results demonstrate that the robustness-accuracy trade-off is substantially larger than what is typically conveyed by individual papers. This information is critical for practitioners and decision-makers. When deploying models in real-world settings, the accuracy cost of robustness directly affects business outcomes, yet current publications do not provide the vanilla baseline needed to assess it. We argue that future robustness evaluations should report vanilla-referenced accuracy gaps as a standard component.
This work comprehensively investigates computation-efficient strategies to speed up latent adversarial training from two complementary perspectives, and reduces per-step adversarial-training FLOPs by 48.1% while requiring only 0.0118% trainable parameters.
Adversarial training (AT) is a widely adopted defense against adversarial attacks, but its multi-step optimization process for generating adversarial examples leads to substantial computational overhead. To mitigate this, various single-step adversarial training methods have been proposed. However, these models often suffer from catastrophic overfitting under larger perturbations and exhibit degraded robustness. The core issue is that certain single-step adversarial examples, although successfully learned and correctly classified, fail to expose the true vulnerabilities of models. We refer to these misleading examples as “fakers”. Specifically, we find that fakers exhibit three distinct characteristics compared to standard adversarial examples: 1) they unexpectedly degrade the model robustness rather than improve it; 2) they make it harder for the model to learn their robust features; and 3) they show significantly greater divergence from their clean counterparts. These observations motivate us to proactively reduce the impact of fakers during training. To this end, we propose the Faker-Alleviating Single-step adversarial Training method (FAST), a general and effective framework designed to enhance both accuracy and robustness. Concretely, FAST consists of two main components. First, it dynamically adjusts the label-smoothing level for adversarial examples according to their learning difficulty, making fakers easier for the model to learn. Second, it introduces an auxiliary sample with a weak adversarial effect, derived from the single-step adversarial example, which is used to dynamically ease the alignment with clean data and stabilize the optimization process. We demonstrate the effectiveness of FAST through extensive experiments, showing that our method achieves superior clean accuracy and robustness against various types of adversarial attacks. The code is available at https://github.com/mesunhlf/FAST.
Lifeng Huang, Yuquan Lin, Chen Wan et al.· IEEE Transactions on Informa...· 0 citations
A novel energy-based optimization strategy to improve the robust generalization of machine learning models against adversarial attacks by incorporating the principles of energy-based models and shows strong and competitive performance across three extensively utilized datasets.
This work studies the opposite of an imperceptible perturbation to fool a model: a large, clearly visible perturbation that causes the model to keep its original, correct prediction, even though a human would no longer recognize the image.
Adversarial robustness is commonly evaluated with predefined attack ensembles, such as AutoAttack, at a single perturbation budget $\varepsilon$ and on a selective choice of perturbation norms. We argue this formulation is fundamentally limited. First, robustness--perturbation curves may intersect or decay at different rates across models, making single-$\varepsilon$ rankings unstable. Second, current ensembles provide no evidence of optimality, leaving an unknown gap to worst-case performance. Third, fixed attack configurations provide no systematic control over the trade-off between attack strength and evaluation cost. To address these limitations, we introduce a unified evaluation framework based on a comprehensive pool of minimum-norm attacks and robustness--perturbation curves across $\ell_0$, $\ell_1$, $\ell_2$ and $\ell_\infty$ norms. We define the attack frontier as the worst-case robustness estimate the attack pool produces against a model. We then formalize evaluation as a frontier-approximation problem, constructing minimum-norm attack ensembles, optimized subsets of the comprehensive pool, that approach the frontier under a controllable query budget, with larger budgets monotonically tightening the estimate. Furthermore, we define the defense frontier as the maximum robustness across the model set at each perturbation size. We finally propose the Defense Optimality Index to rank defenses by their gap to the defense frontier, providing a ranking without selecting a reference $\varepsilon$. On CIFAR-10 and ImageNet, our ensembles match or exceed AutoAttack on most defenses at every budget tier, at fixed and controllable query cost, offering practitioners a query-controlled, curve-based alternative to fixed-$\varepsilon$ evaluation.
While machine learning models have demonstrated strong performance in many domains, these models have shown profound vulnerabilities when they are exposed to adversarial threats. While adversarial attacks fall into various categories, the most prominent category in research studies is evasion. In evasion attacks, the adversary generates perturbed versions of samples, which might not be observable by human eyes. These samples generally fool the machine learning models with high confidence. This phenomenon poses a significant security violation against machine learning models. In this paper, we investigate the certified and empirical robustness of various Kolmogorov-Arnold network architectures against strong evasion attacks. At first, we provide the mathematical foundations for randomized smoothing and interval bound propagation, and report the $\ell_2$-certified robustness of the models under randomized smoothing. After that, we systematically evaluate the robustness of various defended and undefended KAN models under FGSM, PGD, and C&W attacks in order to find out the optimal defense strategies and architectures.
Mohammad Meymani, R. Razavi-Far· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
