Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

"Real Attackers Don't Compute Gradients": Bridging the Gap Between Adversarial ML Research and Practice

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2212.14315 v1 pith:7UAXN45T submitted 2022-12-29 cs.CR cs.LG

classification cs.CRcs.LG
keywords adversarialresearchpractitionersreal-worldsecurityattackersattacksdefenses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent years have seen a proliferation of research on adversarial machine learning. Numerous papers demonstrate powerful algorithmic attacks against a wide variety of machine learning (ML) models, and numerous other papers propose defenses that can withstand most attacks. However, abundant real-world evidence suggests that actual attackers use simple tactics to subvert ML-driven systems, and as a result security practitioners have not prioritized adversarial ML defenses. Motivated by the apparent gap between researchers and practitioners, this position paper aims to bridge the two domains. We first present three real-world case studies from which we can glean practical insights unknown or neglected in research. Next we analyze all adversarial ML papers recently published in top security conferences, highlighting positive trends and blind spots. Finally, we state positions on precise and cost-driven threat modeling, collaboration between industry and academia, and reproducible research. We believe that our positions, if adopted, will increase the real-world impact of future endeavours in adversarial ML, bringing both researchers and practitioners closer to their shared goal of improving the security of ML systems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Know Your Agent: Reconnaissance-Driven Pentesting of AI Agents

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reconnaissance-driven black-box pentesting, built as KYA, reports large indirect-prompt-injection success gains on AgentDojo and InjecAgent over self-reproduced iterative baselines.

  2. Mobile GUI Agents under Real-world Threats: Are We There Yet?

    cs.CR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces an app-content instrumentation framework and benchmark showing that examined GUI agents suffer 42.0% and 36.1% average misleading rates from third-party content in dynamic and static tests respectively.

Pith tools