Revisiting Adversarial Training for ImageNet: Architectures, Training and Generalization across Threat Models
About
While adversarial training has been extensively studied for ResNet architectures and low resolution datasets like CIFAR, much less is known for ImageNet. Given the recent debate about whether transformers are more robust than convnets, we revisit adversarial training on ImageNet comparing ViTs and ConvNeXts. Extensive experiments show that minor changes in architecture, most notably replacing PatchStem with ConvStem, and training scheme have a significant impact on the achieved robustness. These changes not only increase robustness in the seen $\ell_\infty$-threat model, but even more so improve generalization to unseen $\ell_1/\ell_2$-attacks. Our modified ConvNeXt, ConvNeXt + ConvStem, yields the most robust $\ell_\infty$-models across different ranges of model parameters and FLOPs, while our ViT + ConvStem yields the best generalization to unseen threat models.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | ImageNet-1k (val) | -- | 1469 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100 | -- | 116 | |
| Image Classification | ImageNet RobustBench (val) | Clean Accuracy76.3 | 36 | |
| Adversarial Attack | ImageNet | Parsimon31.16 | 19 | |
| Adversarial Attack | ImageNet | Parsimon35.5 | 19 | |
| Image Classification | ImageNet-1k 1.0 (test) | Accuracy (Clean)78.2 | 17 | |
| Generative Modeling | ImageNet 256x256 | FID44.46 | 15 | |
| Image Classification | ImageNet 1k (test) | Clean Accuracy77 | 14 | |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | Standard Accuracy77 | 11 | |
| Classification | ImageNet 256x256 | Accuracy (%)78.25 | 9 |