user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: The Limitations of Adversarial Training and the Blind-Spot Attack

Paper content:
The adversarial training procedure proposed by Madry et al. (2018) is one of the most effective methods to defend against adversarial examples in deep neural net- works (DNNs).
In our paper, we shed some lights on the practicality and the hardness of adversarial training by showing that the effectiveness (robustness on test set) of adversarial training has a strong correlation with the distance between a test point and the manifold of training data embedded by the network.
Test examples that are relatively far away from this manifold are more likely to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks.
Consequentially, an adversarial training based defense is susceptible to a new class of attacks, the “blind-spot attack”, where the input images reside in “blind-spots” (low density regions) of the empirical distri- bution of training data but is still on the ground-truth data manifold.
For MNIST, we found that these blind-spots can be easily found by simply scaling and shifting image pixel values.
Most importantly, for large datasets with high dimensional and complex data manifold (CIFAR, ImageNet, etc), the existence of blind-spots in adversarial training makes defending on any valid test examples difficult due to the curse of dimensionality and the scarcity of training data.
Additionally, we find that blind-spots also exist on provable defenses including (Kolter & Wong, 2018) and (Sinha et al., 2018) because these trainable robustness certificates can only be practically optimized on a limited set of training data.
Since the discovery of adversarial examples in deep neural networks (DNNs) BID28 , adversarial training under the robustness optimization framework BID24 has become one of the most effective methods to defend against adversarial examples.
A recent study by BID1 showed that adversarial training does not rely on obfuscated gradients and delivers promising results for defending adversarial examples on small datasets.
Adversarial training approximately solves the following min-max optimization problem: where X is the set of training data, L is the loss function, θ is the parameter of the network, and S is usually a norm constrained p ball centered at 0.
propose to use projected gradient descent (PGD) to approximately solve the maximization problem within S = {δ | δ ∞ ≤ }, where = 0.3 for MNIST dataset on a 0-1 pixel scale, and = 8 for CIFAR-10 dataset on a 0-255 pixel scale.
This approach achieves impressive defending results on the MNIST test set: so far the best available white-box attacks by BID37 can only decrease the test accuracy from approximately 98% to 88% 1 .
However, on CIFAR-10 dataset, a simple 20-step PGD can decrease the test accuracy from 87% to less than 50% 2 .The
effectiveness of adversarial training is measured by the robustness on the test set. However
, the adversarial training process itself is done on the training set. Suppose
we can optimize (1) perfectly, then certified robustness may be obtained on those training data points. However
, if the empirical distribution of training dataset differs from the true data distribution, a test point drawn from the true data distribution might lie in a low probability region in the empirical distribution of training dataset and is not "covered" by the adversarial training procedure. For datasets
that are relatively simple and have low intrinsic dimensions (MNIST, Fashion MNIST, etc), we can obtain enough training examples to make sure adversarial training covers most part of the data distribution. For high dimensional
datasets (CIFAR, ImageNet), adversarial training have been shown difficult (Kurakin et al., 2016; BID29 and only limited success was obtained.A recent attack proposed by shows that adversarial training can be defeated when the input image is produced by a generative model (for example, a generative adversarial network) rather than selected directly from the test examples. The generated images
are well recognized by humans and thus valid images in the ground-truth data distribution. In our interpretation
, this attack effective finds the "blind-spots" in the input space that the training data do not well cover.For higher dimensional datasets, we hypothesize that many test images already fall into these blindspots of training data and thus adversarial training only obtains a moderate level of robustness. It is interesting to
see that for those test images that adversarial training fails to defend, if their distances (in some metrics) to the training dataset are indeed larger. In our paper, we try
to explain the success of robust optimization based adversarial training and show the limitations of this approach when the test points are slightly off the empirical distribution of training data. Our main contributions
are:• We show that on the original set of test images, the effectiveness of adversarial training is highly correlated with the distance (in some distance metrics) from the test image to the manifold of training images. For MNIST and Fashion
MNIST datasets, most test images are close to the training data and very good robustness is observed on these points. For CIFAR, there is a
clear trend that the adversarially trained network gradually loses its robustness property when the test images are further away from training data.• We identify a new class
of attacks, "blind-spot attacks", where the input image resides in a "blind-spot" of the empirical distribution of training data (far enough from any training examples in some embedding space) but is still in the ground-truth data distribution (well recognized by humans and correctly classified by the model). Adversarial training cannot
provide good robustness on these blind-spots and their adversarial examples have small distortions.• We show that blind-spots can
be easily found on a few strong defense models including , BID32 and BID24 . We propose a few simple transformations
(slightly changing contrast and background), that do not noticeably affect the accuracy of adversarially trained MNIST and Fashion MNIST models, but these models become vulnerable to adversarial attacks on these sets of transformed input images. These transformations effectively move
the test images slightly out of the manifold of training images, which does not affect generalization but poses a challenge for robust learning.Our results imply that current adversarial training procedures cannot scale to datasets with a large (intrinsic) dimension, where any practical amount of training data cannot cover all the blind-spots. This explains the limited success for
applying adversarial training on ImageNet dataset, where many test images can be sufficiently far away from the empirical distribution of training dataset.
In this paper, we observe that the effectiveness of adversarial training is highly correlated with the characteristics of the dataset, and data points that are far enough from the distribution of training data are prone to adversarial attacks despite adversarial training.
Following this observation, we defined a new class of attacks called "blind-spot attack" and proposed a simple scale-and-shift scheme for conducting blind-spot attacks on adversarially trained MNIST and Fashion MNIST datasets with high success rates.
Our findings suggest that adversarial training can be challenging due to the prevalence of blind-spots in high dimensional datasets.

assistant: text: We show that even the strongest adversarial training methods cannot defend against adversarial examples crafted on slightly scaled and shifted test images.