# On the Efficacy of Metrics to Describe Adversarial Attacks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13028 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13028/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- [Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.04644/) (2016)
- [Adversarial examples in the physical world](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.02533/) (2016)
- [ZOO: Zeroth Order Optimization based Black-box Attacks to Deep Neural Networks without Training Substitute Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.03999/) (2017)
- [Feature Squeezing: Detecting Adversarial Examples in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.01155/) (2017)
- [Decision-Based Adversarial Attacks: Reliable Attacks Against Black-Box Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.04248/) (2017)
- [On Evaluating Adversarial Robustness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.06705/) (2019)
- [HopSkipJumpAttack: A Query-Efficient Decision-Based Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.02144/) (2019)
- [Characterizing Adversarial Subspaces Using Local Intrinsic Dimensionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.02613/) (2018)
- [MagNet: a Two-Pronged Defense against Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.09064/) (2017)
- [Adversarial Robustness Toolbox v1.0.0](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.01069/) (2018)
- [EAD: Elastic-Net Attacks to Deep Neural Networks via Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.04114/) (2017)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Distortion-Aware Adversarial Attacks on Bounding Boxes of Object Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18815/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Adversarial defenses are naturally evaluated on their ability to tolerate adversarial attacks. To test defenses, diverse adversarial attacks are crafted, that are usually described in terms of their evading capability and the L0, L1, L2, and Linf norms. We question if the evading capability and L-norms are the most effective information to claim that defenses have been tested against a representative attack set. To this extent, we select image quality metrics from the state of the art and search correlations between image perturbation and detectability. We observe that computing L-norms alone is rarely the preferable solution. We observe a strong correlation between the identified metrics computed on an adversarial image and the output of a detector on such an image, to the extent that they can predict the response of a detector with approximately 0.94 accuracy. Further, we observe that metrics can classify attacks based on similar perturbations and similar detectability. This suggests a possible review of the approach to evaluate detectors, where additional metrics are included to assure that a representative attack dataset is selected.