Papers › Provably robust classification of adversarial examples with detection
Provably robust classification of adversarial examples with detection
Fatemeh Sheikholeslami, Ali Lotfi, J Zico Kolter
Adversarial attacks against deep networks can be defended against either by building robust classifiers or, by creating classifiers that can \emph{detect} the presence of adversarial perturbations. Although it may intuitively seem easier to simply detect attacks rather than build a robust classifier, this has not bourne out in practice even empirically, as most detection methods have subsequently been broken by adaptive attacks, thus necessitating \emph{verifiable} performance for detection mechanisms. In this paper, we propose a new method for jointly training a provably robust classifier and detector. Specifically, we show that by introducing an additional "abstain/detection" into a classifier, we can modify existing certified defense mechanisms to allow the classifier to either robustly classify \emph{or} detect adversarial attacks. We extend the common interval bound propagation (IBP) method for certified robustness under ℓ_∞ perturbations to account for our new robust objective, and show that the method outperforms traditional IBP used in isolation, especially for large perturbation sizes. Specifically, tests on MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets exhibit promising results, for example with provable robust error less than 63.63% and 67.92%, for 55.6% and 66.37% natural error, for ϵ=8/255 and 16/255 on the CIFAR-10 dataset, respectively.
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
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
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