Robust Alignment: Harmonizing Clean Accuracy and Adversarial Robustness in Adversarial Training
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Adversarial Training (AT) is one of the most effective methods for developing robust deep neural networks (DNNs). However, AT faces a trade-off problem between clean accuracy and adversarial robustness. In this work, we reveal a surprising phenomenon for the first time: Varying input perturbation intensities for training samples near decision boundaries in AT have minimal impact on model robustness. This finding directly exposes the inconsistency between accuracy and robustness score fluctuations, leading us to identify the misalignment between input and latent spaces as a critical driver of the robustness-accuracy trade-off. To mitigate this misalignment for harmonizing accuracy and robustness, we define Robust Alignment as a new AT target, encouraging the model perception to change with input perturbations provided the final label prediction remains unchanged, which can be achieved via two novel ideas. First, we suggest a reduced and fixed perturbation intensity for those boundary samples, which facilitates the model to utilize the perturbations as learnable patterns, instead of noises that complicate decision boundaries meaninglessly. Second, we propose a Domain Interpolation Consistency Adversarial Regularization (DICAR), based on rigorous theoretical derivations, which explicitly introduces semantic alignment between input and latent spaces into AT. Based on these two ideas, we end up with a new Robust Alignment Adversarial Training (RAAT) method, effectively harmonizing accuracy and robustness. Extensive experiments on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny-ImageNet with ResNet-18, PreActResNet-18, and WideResNet-28-10 demonstrate the effectiveness of RAAT in improving the trade-off beyond four common baselines and a total of 14 related state-of-the-art (SOTA) works.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 58 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.
Builds on
58 of 75 references.
References · 58
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,076
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2017mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 5,155
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
- 2016Wide Residual Networkscited by 3,057
- 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,976
- 2016Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networkscited by 1,960
- 2019Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracycited by 1,510
- 2020Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attackscited by 1,442
- 2018Obfuscated Gradients Give a False Sense of Security: Circumventing Defenses to Adversarial Examplescited by 1,259
38 more
- 2018Averaging Weights Leads to Wider Optima and Better Generalizationcited by 1,194
- 2016Temporal Ensembling for Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 1,054
- 2016Practical Black-Box Attacks against Machine Learningcited by 893
- 2018Robustness May Be at Odds with Accuracycited by 873
- 2017Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Timecited by 686
- 2020On Adaptive Attacks to Adversarial Example Defensescited by 547
- 2017Countering Adversarial Images using Input Transformationscited by 517
- 2020Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learningcited by 504
- 2017Feature Squeezing: Detecting Adversarial Examples in Deep Neural Networkscited by 484
- 2016Regularization With Stochastic Transformations and Perturbations for Deep Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 441
- 2019Unlabeled Data Improves Adversarial Robustnesscited by 415
- 2017Mitigating Adversarial Effects Through Randomizationcited by 382
- 2017Defense against Adversarial Attacks Using High-Level Representation Guided Denoisercited by 329
- 2018Adversarially Robust Generalization Requires More Datacited by 318
- 2021Recent Advances in Adversarial Training for Adversarial Robustnesscited by 276
- 2020Attacks Which Do Not Kill Training Make Adversarial Learning Strongercited by 242
- 2020Bag of Tricks for Adversarial Trainingcited by 199
- 2020Geometry-aware Instance-reweighted Adversarial Trainingcited by 198
- 2021Data Augmentation Can Improve Robustnesscited by 193
- 2018Disentangling Adversarial Robustness and Generalizationcited by 171
- 2018MMA Training: Direct Input Space Margin Maximization through Adversarial Trainingcited by 171
- 2019Are Labels Required for Improving Adversarial Robustness?cited by 162
- 2020Understanding and Mitigating the Tradeoff Between Robustness and Accuracycited by 148
- 2019Adversarial Training Can Hurt Generalizationcited by 131
- 2019Adversarially Robust Generalization Just Requires More Unlabeled Datacited by 75
- 2021Stochastic Training is Not Necessary for Generalizationcited by 63
- 2020CAT: Customized Adversarial Training for Improved Robustnesscited by 61
- 2021Better Safe Than Sorry: Preventing Delusive Adversaries with Adversarial Trainingcited by 58
- 2021Relating Adversarially Robust Generalization to Flat Minimacited by 57
- 2021Probabilistic Margins for Instance Reweighting in Adversarial Trainingcited by 57
- 2021Exploring Memorization in Adversarial Trainingcited by 55
- 2019Robustness to Adversarial Perturbations in Learning from Incomplete Datacited by 49
- 2020Once-for-All Adversarial Training: In-Situ Tradeoff between Robustness and Accuracy for Freecited by 48
- 2021Consistency Regularization for Adversarial Robustnesscited by 42
- 2021Revisiting Consistency Regularization for Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 34
- 2023Balance, Imbalance, and Rebalance: Understanding Robust Overfitting from a Minimax Game Perspectivecited by 18
- 2021Mutual Adversarial Training: Learning together is better than going alonecited by 17
- 2023Revisiting and Exploring Efficient Fast Adversarial Training via LAW: Lipschitz Regularization and Auto Weight Averagingcited by 14
50 most cited of 58 All 58 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.