Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The Limitations of Adversarial Training and the Blind-Spot Attack (1901.04684v1)

Published 15 Jan 2019 in stat.ML, cs.CR, cs.CV, and cs.LG

Abstract: The adversarial training procedure proposed by Madry et al. (2018) is one of the most effective methods to defend against adversarial examples in deep neural networks (DNNs). In our paper, we shed some lights on the practicality and the hardness of adversarial training by showing that the effectiveness (robustness on test set) of adversarial training has a strong correlation with the distance between a test point and the manifold of training data embedded by the network. Test examples that are relatively far away from this manifold are more likely to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Consequentially, an adversarial training based defense is susceptible to a new class of attacks, the "blind-spot attack", where the input images reside in "blind-spots" (low density regions) of the empirical distribution of training data but is still on the ground-truth data manifold. For MNIST, we found that these blind-spots can be easily found by simply scaling and shifting image pixel values. Most importantly, for large datasets with high dimensional and complex data manifold (CIFAR, ImageNet, etc), the existence of blind-spots in adversarial training makes defending on any valid test examples difficult due to the curse of dimensionality and the scarcity of training data. Additionally, we find that blind-spots also exist on provable defenses including (Wong & Kolter, 2018) and (Sinha et al., 2018) because these trainable robustness certificates can only be practically optimized on a limited set of training data.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Huan Zhang (171 papers)
  2. Hongge Chen (20 papers)
  3. Zhao Song (253 papers)
  4. Duane Boning (11 papers)
  5. Inderjit S. Dhillon (62 papers)
  6. Cho-Jui Hsieh (211 papers)
Citations (140)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.