AttackBench: Evaluating Gradient-based Attacks for Adversarial Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While novel gradient-based attacks are continuously proposed to improve the optimization of adversarial examples, each is shown to outperform its predecessors using different experimental setups, implementations, and computational budgets, leading to biased and unfair comparisons. In this work, we overcome this issue by proposing AttackBench, i.e., an attack evaluation framework that evaluates the effectiveness of each attack (along with its different library implementations) under the same maximum available computational budget. To this end, we (i) define a novel optimality metric that quantifies how close each attack is to the optimal solution (empirically estimated by ensembling all attacks), and (ii) limit the maximum number of forward and backward queries that each attack can execute on the target model. Our extensive experimental analysis compares more than 100 attack implementations over 800 different configurations, considering both CIFAR-10 and ImageNet models, and shows that only a few attack implementations outperform all the remaining approaches. These findings suggest that novel defenses should be evaluated against different attacks than those normally used in the literature to avoid overly-optimistic robustness evaluations. We release AttackBench as a publicly-available benchmark that will be continuously updated with new attack implementations to maintain an up-to-date ranking of the best gradient-based attacks. We release AttackBench as a publicly available benchmark, including a continuously updated leaderboard and source code to maintain an up-to-date ranking of the best gradient-based attacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".