PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Black-box Targeted Adversarial Attack on Segment Anything (SAM)

Sheng Zheng, Chaoning Zhang

self/semi-supervised learningBlack-box attackadversarial robustnesssegment anything
29.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
24.70100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
29.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Black-box Targeted Adversarial Attack on Segment Anything (SAM)

Abstract

Deep recognition models are widely vulnerable to adversarial examples, which change the model output by adding quasi-imperceptible perturbation to the image input. Recently, Segment Anything Model (SAM) has emerged to become a popular foundation model in computer vision due to its impressive generalization to unseen data and tasks. Realizing flexible attacks on SAM is beneficial for understanding the robustness of SAM in the adversarial context. To this end, this work aims to achieve a targeted adversarial attack (TAA) on SAM. Specifically, under a certain prompt, the goal is to make the predicted mask of an adversarial example resemble that of a given target image. The task of TAA on SAM has been realized in a concurrent arXiv work in the white-box setup by assuming access to \textit{prompt} and \textit{model}, which is thus less practical. To address the issue of prompt dependence, we propose a simple yet effective approach by only attacking the image encoder. Moreover, we propose a novel regularization loss to enhance the cross-model transferability by increasing the feature dominance of adversarial images over random natural images. Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of our proposed simple techniques to conduct a successful black-box TAA on SAM.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 46% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)