gradient-based attack
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Tübingen Region > Tübingen (0.05)
- North America > United States > Louisiana > Orleans Parish > New Orleans (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Vancouver (0.04)
- Government (1.00)
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (0.95)
- Europe > Italy > Sardinia > Cagliari (0.04)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- Europe > Italy > Liguria > Genoa (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Oxfordshire > Oxford (0.14)
- Europe > Italy > Friuli Venezia Giulia > Trieste Province > Trieste (0.05)
- Europe > Germany > Saarland (0.04)
- (5 more...)
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (0.71)
- Government > Military (0.49)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (0.94)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.47)
Accurate, reliable and fast robustness evaluation
Throughout the past five years, the susceptibility of neural networks to minimal adversarial perturbations has moved from a peculiar phenomenon to a core issue in Deep Learning. Despite much attention, however, progress towards more robust models is significantly impaired by the difficulty of evaluating the robustness of neural network models. Today's methods are either fast but brittle (gradient-based attacks), or they are fairly reliable but slow (score-and decision-based attacks). We here develop a new set of gradient-based adversarial attacks which (a) are more reliable in the face of gradient-masking than other gradient-based attacks, (b) perform better and are more query efficient than current state-of-the-art gradient-based attacks, (c) can be flexibly adapted to a wide range of adversarial criteria and (d) require virtually no hyperparameter tuning. These findings are carefully validated across a diverse set of six different models and hold for L0, L1, L2 and Linf in both targeted as well as untargeted scenarios. Implementations will soon be available in all major toolboxes (Foolbox, CleverHans and ART). We hope that this class of attacks will make robustness evaluations easier and more reliable, thus contributing to more signal in the search for more robust machine learning models.
Indicators of Attack Failure: Debugging and Improving Optimization of Adversarial Examples
Evaluating robustness of machine-learning models to adversarial examples is a challenging problem. Many defenses have been shown to provide a false sense of robustness by causing gradient-based attacks to fail, and they have been broken under more rigorous evaluations.Although guidelines and best practices have been suggested to improve current adversarial robustness evaluations, the lack of automatic testing and debugging tools makes it difficult to apply these recommendations in a systematic manner.In this work, we overcome these limitations by: (i) categorizing attack failures based on how they affect the optimization of gradient-based attacks, while also unveiling two novel failures affecting many popular attack implementations and past evaluations; (ii) proposing six novel \emph{indicators of failure}, to automatically detect the presence of such failures in the attack optimization process; and (iii) suggesting a systematic protocol to apply the corresponding fixes. Our extensive experimental analysis, involving more than 15 models in 3 distinct application domains, shows that our indicators of failure can be used to debug and improve current adversarial robustness evaluations, thereby providing a first concrete step towards automatizing and systematizing them.
main questions raised in the reviews. 2 Reviewer
We thank the Reviewers for their thoughtful assessment of our work and valuable comments. We will work on improving the writing for the final version, as suggested. The test can naturally be applied at any point of the training process to see if overfitting has happened. We used different random seeds for each training process. Indeed, hyperparameter selection is one of the potential sources of overfitting.
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Tübingen Region > Tübingen (0.05)
- North America > United States > Louisiana > Orleans Parish > New Orleans (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Vancouver (0.04)
- Government (1.00)
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (0.95)