REVIEW 2 cited by
Gradient Masking Causes CLEVER to Overestimate Adversarial Perturbation Size
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
read the original abstract
A key problem in research on adversarial examples is that vulnerability to adversarial examples is usually measured by running attack algorithms. Because the attack algorithms are not optimal, the attack algorithms are prone to overestimating the size of perturbation needed to fool the target model. In other words, the attack-based methodology provides an upper-bound on the size of a perturbation that will fool the model, but security guarantees require a lower bound. CLEVER is a proposed scoring method to estimate a lower bound. Unfortunately, an estimate of a bound is not a bound. In this report, we show that gradient masking, a common problem that causes attack methodologies to provide only a very loose upper bound, causes CLEVER to overestimate the size of perturbation needed to fool the model. In other words, CLEVER does not resolve the key problem with the attack-based methodology, because it fails to provide a lower bound.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Testing Robustness Against Unforeseen Adversaries
ImageNet-UA, a six-attack benchmark with four new attacks, shows L-infinity robustness does not transfer to unforeseen distortions and that L2 training and AugMix generalize better.
-
Theoretical Analysis of Relative Errors in Gradient Computations for Adversarial Attacks with CE Loss
T-MIFPE adaptively rescales logits with a theoretically motivated t* per attack phase to reduce floating-point gradient errors, edging out MIFPE in PGD robustness evaluation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.