2022
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2202.13711
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the Adversarial Robustness of Adaptive Test-time Defenses

Abstract: Adaptive defenses that use test-time optimization promise to improve robustness to adversarial examples. We categorize such adaptive testtime defenses and explain their potential benefits and drawbacks. In the process, we evaluate some of the latest proposed adaptive defenses (most of them published at peer-reviewed conferences). Unfortunately, none significantly improve upon static models when evaluated appropriately. Some even weaken the underlying static model while simultaneously increasing inference cost.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As can be seen in Table 1, our method outperforms ADP by up to 32.86%. We should note that the results are lower than presented in [43], this was also observed in [6].…”
Section: Cifar-10 Experimetscontrasting
confidence: 62%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As can be seen in Table 1, our method outperforms ADP by up to 32.86%. We should note that the results are lower than presented in [43], this was also observed in [6].…”
Section: Cifar-10 Experimetscontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…This process is very expensive, both in terms of memory and computations, since the attacker needs to keep the entire computational graph in memory and backpropagate from the classifier through all of the diffusion time steps. Ours Gowal [2] Trades [10] AT [6] PAT [5] Figure 6: Robustness accuracy under CIFAR-10-C as a function of the diffusion model maximal depth T * . We compare our method with the results reported in [11,45,25,24].…”
Section: Computational Resourcesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On various strong adaptive attack benchmarks, we then compare our method with the state-of-the-art adversarial training and adversarial purification methods (Section 5.2 to 5.4). We defer the results against standard attack (i.e., non-adaptive) and black-box attack, suggested by Croce et al (2022), to Appendix C.1 for completeness. Next, we perform various ablation studies to provide better insights into our method (Section 5.5).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general adaptive attacks are considered to be stronger than standard attack (i.e., non-adaptive). Following the checklist of Croce et al (2022), we report the performance of DiffPure for standard attacks in Table 8. We can see that 1) AutoAttack is effective on the static model as its robust accuracies are zero, and 2) standard attacks are not effective on our method as our robust accuracies against standard attacks are much better than those against adaptive attacks (ref.…”
Section: C1 Robust Accuracies Of Our Methods For Standard Attack and ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our work, the attacker's capabilities are defined in a top-down fashion as Table 2. As a randombased defense method, our method is considered relatively vulnerable under EOT attacks [22,54]. It is worth noting that in our attack scenario setting, different attackers have different knowledge degrees of the ensemble model library.…”
Section: Attack Scenariosmentioning
confidence: 99%