Adversarial Training and Robustness for Multiple Perturbations
About
Defenses against adversarial examples, such as adversarial training, are typically tailored to a single perturbation type (e.g., small $\ell_\infty$-noise). For other perturbations, these defenses offer no guarantees and, at times, even increase the model's vulnerability. Our aim is to understand the reasons underlying this robustness trade-off, and to train models that are simultaneously robust to multiple perturbation types. We prove that a trade-off in robustness to different types of $\ell_p$-bounded and spatial perturbations must exist in a natural and simple statistical setting. We corroborate our formal analysis by demonstrating similar robustness trade-offs on MNIST and CIFAR10. Building upon new multi-perturbation adversarial training schemes, and a novel efficient attack for finding $\ell_1$-bounded adversarial examples, we show that no model trained against multiple attacks achieves robustness competitive with that of models trained on each attack individually. In particular, we uncover a pernicious gradient-masking phenomenon on MNIST, which causes adversarial training with first-order $\ell_\infty, \ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ adversaries to achieve merely $50\%$ accuracy. Our results question the viability and computational scalability of extending adversarial robustness, and adversarial training, to multiple perturbation types.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 | Clean Accuracy93.7 | 175 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100 | Clean Accuracy73.5 | 139 | |
| Adversarial Robustness | CIFAR-10 (test) | -- | 76 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 (test) | Accuracy (Natural)86.7 | 24 | |
| Image Classification | Tiny-ImageNet | Clean Accuracy45.1 | 21 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 | Accuracy (Nat)91.2 | 18 | |
| Image Classification | Tiny ImageNet (test) | Clean Accuracy37 | 18 | |
| Image Classification | ImageNet-100 | Accuracy (Nat)83.6 | 13 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 | Accuracy (Natural)86.3 | 13 | |
| Robust Classification | ImageNet-1K | Accuracy (Natural)60.5 | 8 |