Across 240 model configurations and 13 attacks, adaptive and curriculum adversarial training give the largest robustness gains, but 20.53% of evaluations show negative gains, mostly under mismatched source-target models and low-severity attacks.
Reliable Evaluation of Adversarial Transferability
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Adversarial examples (AEs) with small adversarial perturbations can mislead deep neural networks (DNNs) into wrong predictions. The AEs created on one DNN can also fool another DNN. Over the last few years, the transferability of AEs has garnered significant attention as it is a crucial property for facilitating black-box attacks. Many approaches have been proposed to improve adversarial transferability. However, they are mainly verified across different convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures, which is not a reliable evaluation since all CNNs share some similar architectural biases. In this work, we re-evaluate 12 representative transferability-enhancing attack methods where we test on 18 popular models from 4 types of neural networks. Our reevaluation revealed that the adversarial transferability is often overestimated, and there is no single AE that can be transferred to all popular models. The transferability rank of previous attacking methods changes when under our comprehensive evaluation. Based on our analysis, we propose a reliable benchmark including three evaluation protocols. Adversarial transferability on our new benchmark is extremely low, which further confirms the overestimation of adversarial transferability. We release our benchmark at https://adv-trans-eval.github.io to facilitate future research, which includes code, model checkpoints, and evaluation protocols.
fields
cs.CR 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
DUMB and DUMBer: Is Adversarial Training Worth It in the Real World?
Across 240 model configurations and 13 attacks, adaptive and curriculum adversarial training give the largest robustness gains, but 20.53% of evaluations show negative gains, mostly under mismatched source-target models and low-severity attacks.