Paper detail

Two Coupled Rejection Metrics Can Tell Adversarial Examples Apart

Correctly classifying adversarial examples is an essential but challenging requirement for safely deploying machine learning models. As reported in RobustBench, even the state-of-the-art adversarially trained models struggle to exceed 67% robust test accuracy on CIFAR-10, which is far from practical. A complementary way towards robustness is to introduce a rejection option, allowing the model to not return predictions on uncertain inputs, where confidence is a commonly used certainty proxy. Along with this routine, we find that confidence and a rectified confidence (R-Con) can form two coupled rejection metrics, which could provably distinguish wrongly classified inputs from correctly classified ones. This intriguing property sheds light on using coupling strategies to better detect and reject adversarial examples. We evaluate our rectified rejection (RR) module on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10-C, and CIFAR-100 under several attacks including adaptive ones, and demonstrate that the RR module is compatible with different adversarial training frameworks on improving robustness, with little extra computation. The code is available at https://github.com/P2333/Rectified-Rejection.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.