Papers › MORA: Improving Ensemble Robustness Evaluation with Model-Reweighing Attack

MORA: Improving Ensemble Robustness Evaluation with Model-Reweighing Attack

15 Nov 2022arXiv:2211.08008archive 2025-07-28

Yunrui Yu, Xitong Gao, Cheng-Zhong Xu

Adversarial attacks can deceive neural networks by adding tiny perturbations to their input data. Ensemble defenses, which are trained to minimize attack transferability among sub-models, offer a promising research direction to improve robustness against such attacks while maintaining a high accuracy on natural inputs. We discover, however, that recent state-of-the-art (SOTA) adversarial attack strategies cannot reliably evaluate ensemble defenses, sizeably overestimating their robustness. This paper identifies the two factors that contribute to this behavior. First, these defenses form ensembles that are notably difficult for existing gradient-based method to attack, due to gradient obfuscation. Second, ensemble defenses diversify sub-model gradients, presenting a challenge to defeat all sub-models simultaneously, simply summing their contributions may counteract the overall attack objective; yet, we observe that ensemble may still be fooled despite most sub-models being correct. We therefore introduce MORA, a model-reweighing attack to steer adversarial example synthesis by reweighing the importance of sub-model gradients. MORA finds that recent ensemble defenses all exhibit varying degrees of overestimated robustness. Comparing it against recent SOTA white-box attacks, it can converge orders of magnitude faster while achieving higher attack success rates across all ensemble models examined with three different ensemble modes (i.e., ensembling by either softmax, voting or logits). In particular, most ensemble defenses exhibit near or exactly 0% robustness against MORA with ℓ^∞ perturbation within 0.02 on CIFAR-10, and 0.01 on CIFAR-100. We make MORA open source with reproducible results and pre-trained models; and provide a leaderboard of ensemble defenses under various attack strategies.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

4 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 4 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from lafeat/mora. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections