PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

On the Vulnerability of Adversarially Trained Models Against Two-faced Attacks

Shengjie Zhou, Lue Tao, Yuzhou Cao, Tao Xiang, Bo An, Lei Feng

fairness, safety & privacyadversarial trainingadversarial robustnesstwo-faced attacks
83.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
72.30100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
84.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We disclose that adversarially trained models are vulnerable to two-faced attacks, where slightly perturbed features of input data can make the model exhibit a false sense of robustness.

Abstract

Adversarial robustness is an important standard for measuring the quality of learned models, and adversarial training is an effective strategy for improving the adversarial robustness of models. In this paper, we disclose that adversarially trained models are vulnerable to two-faced attacks, where slight perturbations in input features are crafted to make the model exhibit a false sense of robustness in the verification phase. Such a threat is significantly important as it can mislead our evaluation of the adversarial robustness of models, which could cause unpredictable security issues when deploying substandard models in reality. More seriously, this threat seems to be pervasive and tricky: we find that many types of models suffer from this threat, and models with higher adversarial robustness tend to be more vulnerable. Furthermore, we provide the first attempt to formulate this threat, disclose its relationships with adversarial risk, and try to circumvent it via a simple countermeasure. These findings serve as a crucial reminder for practitioners to exercise caution in the verification phase, urging them to refrain from blindly trusting the exhibited adversarial robustness of models.

Author context

Most prolific author: 14 submissions (credibility 0.79).

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 — 36 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 61% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)