Papers › Perceptual Adversarial Robustness: Defense Against Unseen Threat Models
Perceptual Adversarial Robustness: Defense Against Unseen Threat Models
Cassidy Laidlaw, Sahil Singla, Soheil Feizi
A key challenge in adversarial robustness is the lack of a precise mathematical characterization of human perception, used in the very definition of adversarial attacks that are imperceptible to human eyes. Most current attacks and defenses try to avoid this issue by considering restrictive adversarial threat models such as those bounded by L₂ or L_∞ distance, spatial perturbations, etc. However, models that are robust against any of these restrictive threat models are still fragile against other threat models. To resolve this issue, we propose adversarial training against the set of all imperceptible adversarial examples, approximated using deep neural networks. We call this threat model the neural perceptual threat model (NPTM); it includes adversarial examples with a bounded neural perceptual distance (a neural network-based approximation of the true perceptual distance) to natural images. Through an extensive perceptual study, we show that the neural perceptual distance correlates well with human judgements of perceptibility of adversarial examples, validating our threat model. Under the NPTM, we develop novel perceptual adversarial attacks and defenses. Because the NPTM is very broad, we find that Perceptual Adversarial Training (PAT) against a perceptual attack gives robustness against many other types of adversarial attacks. We test PAT on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet-100 against five diverse adversarial attacks. We find that PAT achieves state-of-the-art robustness against the union of these five attacks, more than doubling the accuracy over the next best model, without training against any of them. That is, PAT generalizes well to unforeseen perturbation types. This is vital in sensitive applications where a particular threat model cannot be assumed, and to the best of our knowledge, PAT is the first adversarial training defense with this property.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2006.12655")
Code
Syntology Ran 11 of 14 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 9 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 12 samples from 1 repository, 9 ran; community (archive-listed): 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
14 samples harvested; 11 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 2 of the 14 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 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “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.
7145686c67025ec1 · report
739afba6923ed65c · report
e39bb656fc085ddb · report
74e9725f2c4515bd · report
5153783f8169f34c · report
5b2c8693ad3f1ba0 · report
5569d8317369619e · report
cf259b114c239eb5 · report
016b0a2f3d92b2bd · report
cc2c7f04f7f8cc5a · report
3fd9de784fa31909 · report
af3b041cc30c1970 · report
5f40d79adb31f436 · report
86c37d42bbcb2386 · report
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