S ELF - SUPERVISED A DVERSARIAL R OBUSTNESS FOR THE L OW - LABEL , H IGH - DATA R EGIME
Anonymous authors
Paper under double-blind review
A BSTRACT
Recent work discovered that training models to be invariant to adversarial perturbations requires substantially larger datasets than those required for standard classiﬁcation.
Perhaps more surprisingly, these larger datasets can be “mostly” unlabeled.
Pseudo-labeling , a technique simultaneously pioneered by four separate and simultaneous works in 2019, has been proposed as a competitive alternative to labeled data for training adversarially robust models.
However, when the amount of labeled data decreases, the performance of pseudo-labeling catastrophically drops, thus questioning the theoretical insights put forward by Uesato et al.
(2019), which suggest that the sample complexity for learning an adversarially robust model from unlabeled data should match the fully supervised case.
We introduce Bootstrap
Your Own Robust Latents (BYORL), a self-supervised learning technique based on BYOL for training adversarially robust models.
Our method enables us to train robust representations without any labels (reconciling practice with theory).
This robust representation can be leveraged by a linear classiﬁer to train adversarially robust models.
We evaluate BYORL and pseudo-labeling on C IFAR -10 and demonstrate that BYORL achieves signiﬁcantly higher robustness in the low-label regime (i.e., models resulting from BYORL are up to two times more accurate).
Experiments on C IFAR -10 against (cid:96) 2 and (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations demonstrate that BYORL achieves near state-of-the-art robustness with as little aslabeled examples.
We also note that against (cid:96) 2 norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15) = 128 / 255 , BYORL surpasses the known state-of-the-art with an accuracy under attack of 77.61% (against 72.91% for the prior art).
I NTRODUCTION
As neural networks tackle challenges ranging from ranking content on the web (Covington et al., 2016) to autonomous driving (Bojarski et al., 2016) via medical diagnostics (De Fauw et al., 2018), it has becomes increasingly important to ensure that deployed models are robust and generalize to various input perturbations.
Unfortunately, despite their success, neural networks are not intrinsically robust.
In particular, the addition of small but carefully chosen deviations to the input, called adversarial perturbations, can cause the neural network to make incorrect predictions with high conﬁdence (Carlini & Wagner, 2017a; Goodfellow et al., 2014; Kurakin et al., 2016; Szegedy et al., 2013).
Starting with Szegedy et al.
, there has been a lot of work on understanding and generating adversarial perturbations (Carlini & Wagner, 2017b; Athalye & Sutskever, 2017), and on building models that are robust to such perturbations (Papernot et al., 2015; Madry et al., 2017; Kannan et al., 2018).
Robust optimization techniques, like the one developed by Madry et al.
(2017), learn robust models by trying to ﬁnd the worst-case adversarial examples (by using gradient ascent on the training loss) at each training step and adding them to the training data.
Since Madry et al.
(2017), various modiﬁcations to their original implementation have been proposed (Zhang et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2019).
We highlight the simultaneous work from Carmon et al.
; Uesato et al.
; Zhai et al.
; Najaﬁ et al.
(2019) that pioneered the use of additional unlabeled data using pseudo-labeling .
While, theoretically, robustness can be achieved with only limited amount of labeled data, in practice, it remains difﬁcult to train models that are both robust and accurate in the low-label regime.
Finally, we note that there has been little work towards learning adversarially robust representations that allow for efﬁcient training on multiple downstream tasks (with the exception of Cemgil et al., 2019;
Kim et al., 2020).
Learning good image representations is a key challenge in computer vision (Wiskott & Sejnowski, 2002; Hinton et al., 2006), and many different approaches have been proposed.
Among them state-of-the-art methods include contrastive methods (Chen et al., 2020b;
Oord et al., 2018;
He et al., 2020) and latent bootstrapping (Grill et al., 2020).
However, none of these recent works consider the impact of adversarial manipulations, which can render the widespread use of general representations difﬁcult.
As an example, Fig. 1 demonstrates the effect that a non-robust representation has on a content retrieval task, where two seemingly identical query images are matched to widely different images (i.e., their nearest neighbors in representation space).
In this paper, we tackle the issue of learning robust representations that are adversarially robust on multiple downstream tasks in the low-label regime.
Our contributions are as follows:
• We formulate Bootstrap Your Own Robust Latents (BYORL), a modiﬁcation of Bootstrap Your Own Latents (BYOL) (Grill et al., 2020) that enables the training of robust representations without the need for any label information.
These representations allow for efﬁcient training on multiple downstream tasks with a fraction of the original labels.
• Most notably, even with only 1% of the labels, BYORL comes close to or even exceeds previous state-of-the-art which uses all labels.
For example, for (cid:96) 2 norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15) = 128 / 255 on C IFAR -10, BYORL achieves 75.50% robust accuracy compared to 72.91% for the previous state-of-the-art using all labels.
BYORL reaches 77.61% robust accuracy when using all available labels (and additional unlabeled data extracted from 80M-T INY I MAGES ; Torralba et al., 2008).
• Finally, we show that the representations learned through BYORL transfer much better to downstream tasks (i.e., downscaled S TL -
(Coates et al., 2011) and C IFAR -
(Krizhevsky et al., 2014)) than those obtained through pseudo-labeling and standard adversarial training.
Importantly, we also highlight that classiﬁers trained on top of these robust representations do not need to be trained adversarially to be robust.
R ELATED WORK
Adversarial robustness.
Biggio et al.
(2013) and Szegedy et al.
(2013) observed that neural networks, while they achieve high accuracy on test data, are vulnerable to carefully crafted inputs perturbations, called adversarial examples.
Since then, there has been several work on building stronger adversarial examples as well as defense against such adversarial examples (Carlini &
Wagner, 2017b; Athalye & Sutskever, 2017; Goodfellow et al., 2014; Papernot et al., 2015; Madry et al., 2017; Kannan et al., 2018).
Arguably, the most successful approach for learning adversarially robust models is adversarial training as proposed by Madry et al.
(Athalye et al., 2018; Uesato et al., 2018).
This classic version of adversarial training has been augmented in different ways – with changes in the attack procedure (e.g., by incorporating momentum;
Dong et al.,
, loss function (e g., logit pairing; Mosbach et al., or model architecture ( e.g
, using attention;
Zoran et al
We also highlight
Zhang et al.
(2019), who proposed TRADES which balances the trade-off between standard and robust accuracy.
By construction, to the contrary of our proposed method, all aforementioned approaches use label information and are not capable of learning generic representations that might be useful to multiple downstream tasks.
Semi- and self-supervised learning.
Since human annotations can be expensive, semi- and selfsupervised learning approaches that leverage both labeled and unlabeled data have been proposed to improve model performance (Chapelle et al., 2009; Bachman et al., 2014; Berthelot et al., 2019;
Laine & Aila, 2017; Miyato et al., 2018; Sajjadi et al., 2016; Xie et al., 2019).
A common approach is to train networks to solve a manually-predeﬁned pretext task (e.g., predicting the relative location of image patches) for representation learning, and later use the learned representation for a speciﬁc supervised learning task (Dosovitskiy et al., 2014; Doersch et al., 2015; Noroozi & Favaro, 2016).
Recently, contrastive learning that uses different views of multiple augmented images has been an effective tool to learn rich representation from unsupervised data (Oord et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020b; He et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2020), as these methods achieve comparable performance to fully-supervised models.
While these works focus on improving standard generalization, we leverage representation learning, as proposed by Grill et al.
(2020), to improve adversarial generalization.
Semi- and self-supervised learning for adversarial robustness.
Schmidt et al.
(2018) showed that learning adversarially robust models requires more data.
As such, adversarial robustness with unlabeled data has recently drawn a lot of attention.
We highlight the works by Uesato et al.
Carmon et al.
; Zhai et al.
which leveraged labeled data to train a standard classiﬁer that is in turn used to pseudo-label the remaining unlabeled data.
However, as shown by Uesato et al.
; Carmon et al.
; Zhai et al.
(2019), when only 10% of the C IFAR -10 labels are available the robust accuracy drops signiﬁcantly.
In this paper, we focus on improving adversarial robustness in the low-label regime by leveraging unlabeled data (e.g., when 1%–10% of labels are available) to build robust representations.
The result is a technique that signiﬁcantly outperforms state-of-the-art pseudo-labeling techniques in the low-label regime and remains competitive with adversarial training when all labels are available.
Chen et al.
(2020a) also study adversarial pretraining on self-supervised tasks and demonstrate that they can train robust representations.
However, to the contrary of our approach, their method does not preserve the robustness of their resulting representations on downstream tasks (unless robust ﬁne-tuning is used).
Hendrycks et al.
(2019) combine supervised adversarial training with an additional self-supervised head.
They demonstrate that they can improve on standard adversarial training, but do not learn general representations.
We also highlight the recent work by Kim et al.
(2020) which combines adversarial training with contrastive learning.
Our method reaches comparable robust accuracy, but is more scalable (as it is not based on contrastive learning which requires large batch sizes).
To the contrary of Kim et al.
, we also study the transferability of robust representations and focus on the low-label regime.
M ETHOD
In this section, we explain BYORL which elegantly combines adversarial training with BYOL.
Hence, we start by giving a brief description of adversarial training and BYOL.
3. A DVERSARIAL TRAINING
Madry et al.
(2017) formulate a saddle point problem whose goal is to ﬁnd model parameters θ that minimize the adversarial risk:
[Equation]
where D is a data distribution over pairs of examples x and corresponding labels y , f ( · ; θ ) is a model parametrized by θ , l is a suitable loss function (such as the 0 − 1 loss in the context of classiﬁcation tasks), and S deﬁnes the set of allowed perturbations (i.e., the adversarial input set or threat model).
[Figure]
Several methods (also known as “attacks”) have been proposed to ﬁnd adversarial examples (and effectively solve the inner maximization problem in Eq. 1).
Classical adversarial training as proposed by Madry et al.
(2017) uses Projected Gradient Descent (PGD), 2 which replaces the impractical 0 −loss l with the cross-entropy loss ˆ l and computes an adversarial perturbation ˆ δ = δ ( K ) in K gradient ascent steps of size α as
[Equation]
where δ (0) is chosen at random within S , and where proj A ( a ) projects a point a back onto a set A .
Finally, for each example x with label y , adversarial training minimizes the loss given by
[Equation]
where ˆ δ is given by Eq.
and ˆ l is the softmax cross-entropy loss.
3. B OOTSTRAP YOUR OWN LATENTS
Many successful self-supervised learning approaches learn image representations by identifying whether different views belong to the same image (Dosovitskiy et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2018).
Whereas contrastive methods formulate this prediction problem into one of discrimination (i.e., from the representation of an augmented view, they learn to discriminate between the representation of another augmented view of the same image, and the representations of augmented views of other images), BYOL relies on two neural networks: an online and a target network, that interact and learn from each other.
The goal of the online network is to predict the target network representation of the same image under different augmented views, where the target network itself is deﬁned by an exponential moving average of the online network parameters.
We selected BYOL as the basis of our proposed method not only because it is currently the most successful representation learning technique, but also because it is more amenable to adversarial training, to contrary of contrastive methods which require large batch sizes (Chen et al., 2020b;
Oord et al., 2018) or memory banks He et al.
As shown in Fig.
2, the online network is composed of three stages: an encoder e ( · ; θ ) , a projector g ( · ; θ ) and a predictor q ( · ; θ ) .
Omitting the predictor, the target network has the same architecture as the online network, but uses a different set of weights ξ .
As explained by Grill et al.
(2020), in order to enhance representations while preventing their collapse, the target network’s weights are allowed to change slowly throughout training.
More precisely, given a decay rate τ ∈ [0 , 1] , after each training step, the parameters ξ are updated as ξ ← τ ξ + (1 − τ ) θ .
Given an image x , and two augmentations t, t (cid:48) ∼ T sampled from a set of augmentations (e.g., random crops or recolorizations),
BYOL produces two augmented views v = t ( x ) and v (cid:48)
=
t (cid:48)
( x ) .
The ﬁrst view passes through the online network, producing a representation h =
e ( x ; θ ) and a projection z = g ( h ; θ ) .
The second view similarly passes through the target network, producing a target projection z (cid:48)
=
g ◦ e ( v (cid:48) ; ξ ) .
Finally, given an online prediction q ( z ; θ ) (which should be predictive of the target projection),
BYOL minimizes the loss
[Equation]
At the end of training, everything but e and θ is discarded and only the representation e ( x ; θ ) of an image x is used by downstream applications.
3. B OOTSTRAP YOUR OWN ROBUST LATENTS
We now introduce an effective and elegant approach to learn adversarially robust representations.
Whereas previous (semi-)supervised techniques that are directly based on adversarial training require the presence of labels to produce adversarially robust neural networks (from which robust representations can be extracted at intermediate layers), our method can operate without any labels.
As shown in the experimental section, the resulting representations can then be used to train linear classiﬁers (on top of these representation) that are intrinsically robust to adversaries.
Our method, named Bootstrap
Your Own Robust Latents or BYORL, consists of combining BYOL with adversarial training.
A diagram summarizing BYORL is visible in Fig.
For conciseness, we will denote by γ =
g ◦
e the composition of the encoder and projector and by κ = q ◦ g ◦
e the composition of the encoder, projector and predictor.
Similarly to BYOL, BYORL starts by generating two views v = t ( x ) and v (cid:48)
=
t (cid:48)
( x ) of the same image x .
While the second view goes through the target network unmodiﬁed to produce a target projection z (cid:48)
= γ ( v (cid:48) ; ξ ) , the ﬁrst view is further augmented via an adversarial attack.
The goal of the adversarial attack is to maximize the disagreement between the online and target networks while respecting the threat model described by S (see subsection 3.1).
To this end, we would like to ﬁnd an optimal perturbation δ (cid:63) ∈ S that minimizes the resulting cosine similarity between the online prediction κ ( v + δ ; θ ) and target projection z (cid:48) :
[Equation]
Like adversarial training, we can leverage PGD to approximate δ (cid:63) by ˆ δ .
Taking K steps of size α , resulting in ˆ δ = δ ( K ) , we have
[Equation]
where δ (0) is chosen at random within S .
Finally
[Equation]
we seek to maximize the agreement between the adversarially modiﬁed online prediction κ ( v + ˆ δ ; θ ) and the target projection z (cid:48) by updating the online weights θ as to minimize the following loss:
[Equation]
Here are a few additional considerations.
First, we symmetrize the loss L BYORL θ in Eq.
7 by feeding v (cid:48) to the online network and v to the target network.
The adversarial attack is executed on v (cid:48) instead of v and tries to minimize the cosine similarity between the online prediction κ ( v (cid:48) + δ ; θ ) and target projection γ ( v ; ξ ) :
L symmetric θ
[Equation]
, v ) .
Second, one can observe that the adversarial attack is always performed through the online network.
We could similarly perform the attack through the target network, but we found that training was less stable as batch statistics (needed by batch normalization) were not representative of statistics induced by adversarial examples (as the online network would receive clean rather than adversarial images).
Third, instead of the proposed method, we could imagine making two passes through the online network (for both the clean and adversarial images) and maximizing the agreement between both online predictions (in addition to maximizing the agreement with the target projection).
We found that this increased the risk of representation collapse as this adds an incentive for the online network to output constant predictions (i.e., collapsed representations are the perfect defense against adversarial attacks).
E XPERIMENTS
We assess the performance of BYORL across multiple axes.
We evaluate the robustness of the resulting representations by training robust linear classiﬁers on top of these representations.
First, we compare to the performance of various classiﬁers (comparing BYORL with pseudo-labeling ).
Second, we study how these robust representations transfer to unseen new tasks.
Finally, we also evaluate whether robustness transfers to downstream tasks – even when the ﬁnal task is not treated as being adversarial.
4. S ETUP AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS
We highlight here the most important components and defer some of the details to Appendix A.
Architecture.
We use a convolutional residual network (He et al., 2015) with 34 layers (PreActivation ResNet- 34 ) as our encoder e .
We also use wider (from × 1 to × 4 ) ResNets.
The projector g and predictor q networks are MLPs with hidden dimension 4096 and output dimension 256 .
Outer optimization.
We use the LARS optimizer (You et al., 2017) with a cosine learning rate schedule (Loshchilov & Hutter, 2017) over 1000 epochs.
We set the learning rate to 2 and use a global weight decay parameter of 5 · 10 − 4 .
For the target network, the exponential moving average parameter τ starts from 0 .
and is increased to one during training.
We use a batch size of 512 .
Inner optimization.
The inner minimization in Eq.
7 is implemented using K PGD steps (constrained by an (cid:96) 2 or (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded ball).
Unless speciﬁed otherwise, we set K to 40 and use an adaptive step size α (see Algorithm 1 in Croce & Hein, 2020).
For (cid:96) ∞ and (cid:96) 2 norm-bounded perturbations, the gradients in Eq.
6 are ﬁrst normalized to their sign or by their (cid:96) 2 norm, respectively.
Evaluation protocol.
We evaluate the performance of BYORL on C IFAR -10 against adversarial (cid:96) 2 and (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations (C IFAR -
and I MAGE N ET results are in the appendix).
For that purpose, we train a linear classiﬁer parametrized by coefﬁcients W and offsets b on top of frozen BYORL representations, following the procedure described in Kolesnikov et al.
; Chen et al.
(2020b).
The linear model is either trained in a non-robust manner (i.e., min W , b E ( x ,y ) ∈D
ˆ l ( W e ( x ; θ ) + b , y ) ) or adversarially (i.e., min W , b E ( x ,y ) ∈D max δ ∈ S ˆ l ( W e ( x + δ ; θ ) + b , y ) ).
We then compute the robust accuracy, which is the accuracy of the combined model
W e ( · ; θ ) + b against adversarial attacks (i.e., we count a successful attack as a misclassiﬁcation): 1 − E ( x ,y ) ∈D max δ ∈ S l ( W e ( x + δ ; θ )+ b , y ) .
In order to get faithful results, all models are evaluated using a strong attack which combines elements of the AutoAttack procedure (Croce & Hein, 2020) with the MultiTargeted attack (Gowal et al., 2019).
Namely, we use a sequence of AutoPGD on the cross-entropy loss with 5 restarts and 100 steps, AutoPGD on the difference of logits ratio loss with 5 restarts and 100 steps, MultiTargeted on
Baseline.
Throughout the experimental section, we compare BYORL with adversarial training (combined with pseudo-labeling to handle missing labels).
Pseudo-labeling is currently, to the best of our knowledge, the most successful semi-supervised method for learning adversarially robust models (Carmon et al., 2019; Uesato et al., 2019;
Zhai et al., 2019; Najaﬁ et al., 2019).
More speciﬁcally, we use Unsupervised Adversarial Training with Fixed Targets (UAT-FT) (Uesato et al., 2019).
When 100% of the labels are available UAT-FT is equivalent to classical adversarial training, as proposed by Madry et al.
In settings where less than 100% of the labels are available, we train a separate non-robust model (with an architecture identical to the robust model being trained) on the available labeled data and use it to pseudo-label the rest of the unlabeled images.
UAT-FT uses the same network architectures than those used by BYORL.
[Figure] [Figure]
extracted from 80M
T INY I MAGES .
4. R ESULTS
Robustness on C IFAR -10.
We evaluate BYORL and UAT-FT on a wide range of tasks across different threats for various amounts of available labels.
As is typical in the literature (Rice et al., 2020; Augustin et al., 2020), we evaluate our models on C IFAR -10 against (cid:96) 2 and (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15)
= 128 / 255 and (cid:15)
= 8 / 255 (C IFAR -
and I MAGE N ET are evaluated in the appendix).
C IFAR -10 contains 60K images (i.e., 50K in the train set and 10K in the test set).
As such, when we evaluate on 1% of labeled data, we only use 500 random labeled images from C IFAR - (we do not artiﬁcially balance the number of labels per class).
As done in Carmon et al.
and
Uesato et al.
(2019), we also explore the limits of BYORL in the setting where additional unlabeled data is available.
This additional data is extracted from 80M-T INY I MAGES and consists of 500K unlabeled 32 × 32 images 3 .
In settings without this additional data, we use a ResNet- 34 × 2 , whereas in settings with this additional data, we use a ResNet- 34 × 4 .
Fig.
3 shows the robust accuracy of BYORL and UAT-FT on the full C IFAR -10 test set against (cid:96)norm-bounded perturbations (similar ﬁgures that show clean accuracy are available in Appendix B).
We observe that linear classiﬁers trained on top of robust BYORL representations are more robust than those trained with UAT-FT.
In particular, we highlight than when only 500 labeled images are available, BYORL remains competitive with state-of-the-art methods that use all labels: without additional data from 80M-T INY I MAGES , BYORL reaches 65.43% compared to 69.24% (Engstrom et al., 2019); with additional data from 80M-T INY I MAGES , BYORL reaches 75.50% compared to 72.91% (Augustin et al., 2020).
Fig.
4 shows the robust accuracy of BYORL and UAT-FT on the full C IFAR -10 test set against (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations.
Again, we can observe that BYORL remains competitive: in the low-label regime, BYORL surpasses UAT-FT by a signiﬁcant margin (up to 2 × more accurate); in the high-label regime BYORL loses a few percentage points.
Perhaps surprisingly, under both threat models (i.e., (cid:96) ∞ and (cid:96) 2 ), BYORL reaches peak performance with 5% of the labels (and beyond).
[Table] [Table]
Transfer to unseen tasks.
We evaluate our robust representations on other classiﬁcation datasets to assess whether the features learned on C IFAR -10 are generic and thus useful across image domains, or if they are C IFAR -10-speciﬁc.
As a comparison, we test whether pre-logits activations resulting from training a model using UAT-FT can also be used for transfer learning.
For both representations, we train a robust linear model using adversarial training (see subsection 3.1) with different label availability on S TL -10 and C IFAR -100 against (cid:96) ∞ and (cid:96) 2 norm-bounded perturbations.
Table 1 shows that BYORL representations result in equivalent or more robust models than UAT-FT representations.
We note, however, that – at least on C IFAR -100 – the robust accuracy remains signiﬁcantly lower than models trained directly on C IFAR -100.
Transfer without adversarial training.
So far, the linear classiﬁers trained on top of BYORL representations were trained robustly using adversarial training.
We now evaluate whether adversarial training is needed for downstream tasks.
Conversely, we also verify that learning robust representations is needed to obtain robust linear classiﬁers.
Table 2 shows the robust accuracy of four models: (i) an adversarially trained linear model on top of robust BYORL representations, (ii) a classically trained (not necessarily robust) linear model on top of robust BYORL representations, (iii) an adversarially trained linear model on top of non-robust BYOL representations, and (iv) a classically trained linear model on top of non-robust BYOL representations.
Although not a guarantee in theory (Allen-Zhu & Li, 2020), we observe that the adversarial training of the linear classiﬁer is, in practice, not necessary and that it is enough to train robust representations to obtain robust classiﬁers.
Indeed, for all three considered downstream tasks (C IFAR -10, S TL -10 and C IFAR -100), the resulting non-robustly trained linear classiﬁers are within a few percentage points of the robustly trained ones (results for I MAGE N ET are available in the appendix in Table 5).
C ONCLUSION
In this work, we present BYORL, a modiﬁcation of BYOL that enables us to train robust image representations.
To the contrary of previous methods, BYORL does not require the presence of label information.
In fact, it is even possible to use these robust representations to train adversarially robust classiﬁers on multiple downstream tasks (without the need to use adversarial training).
Interestingly, classiﬁers using BYORL representations can be trained with as little as 500 labeled examples.
Across all experiments, BYORL with 1% of labels (i.e., 500 labeled examples) matches or surpasses the performance of pseudo-labeling (implemented through UAT-FT) with 10-20% of labels (i.e., between 5K and 10K labeled examples).
A E XPERIMENTAL SETUP
Image augmentations.
BYORL uses similar image augmentations to SimCLR (Chen et al., 2020b) and BYOL (Grill et al., 2020).
First, a random patch of the image is selected and resized to 32 ×with a random horizontal ﬂip, followed by a color distortion, consisting of a random sequence of brightness, contrast, saturation, hue adjustments, and an optional grayscale conversion.
Because of the low image resolution of C IFAR -10 and C IFAR -100, we do not apply a ﬁnal Gaussian blur and solarization to the patches.
Architecture.
For consistency with prior work on adversarial robustness (Rice et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2020), we use a convolutional residual network (He et al., 2015) with 34 layers (Pre-Activation
ResNet- 34 ) as our encoder e .
We also use wider (from × 1 to × 4 ) ResNets.
The ﬁnal representation h is the output of the ﬁnal average pooling layer, which has a feature dimension of 2048 (when the width multiplier is × 1 ).
The projector g and predictor q networks are multi-layer perceptrons .
They consist of a linear layer with output size 4096 followed by batch normalization (Ioffe & Szegedy, 2015), rectiﬁed linear units (ReLU) (Nair & Hinton, 2010), and a ﬁnal linear layer with output dimension 256 .
Outer optimization.
We use the LARS optimizer (You et al., 2017) with a cosine decay learning rate schedule (Loshchilov & Hutter, 2017) over 1000 epochs, with a warm-up period of 10 epochs.
We set the learning rate to 2 and use a global weight decay parameter of 5 · 10 − 4 .
For the target network, the exponential moving average parameter τ starts from 0 .
and is increased to one during training using a cosine schedule.
We use a batch size of 512 split over 32 Google Cloud TPU vcores.
We train linear classiﬁers using the Adam optimizer (Kingma & Ba, 2014) for 50 epochs with an initial learning of 2 · 10 − 3 (the learning rate is decayed by a factor 10 × after 25 epochs).
For linear classiﬁers, we perform early stopping as suggested by Rice et al.
(2020) using a separate set of 1024 validation images (we do the same when training UAT-FT models).
Note that linear models trained on frozen BYORL representations do not really need early stopping (as the linear model do not overﬁt signiﬁcantly).
However, UAT-FT and adversarial training are prone to robust overﬁtting and obtain signiﬁcantly higher robust accuracy using early stopping.
Inner optimization.
The inner minimization in Eq.
7 is implemented using K PGD steps (constrained by an (cid:96) 2 or (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded ball).
In particular, unless speciﬁed otherwise, we set K toand use an adaptive step size (as speciﬁed in Algorithm 1 in Croce & Hein, 2020).
For (cid:96) ∞ and (cid:96)norm-bounded perturbations, the gradients in Eq.
6 are ﬁrst normalized to their sign or by their (cid:96)norm, respectively.
With this setup, training takes approximately 19 hours for a ResNet- 34 × 2 anddays for a ResNet- 34 × 4 .
Evaluation protocol.
We evaluate the performance of BYORL on C IFAR -10 and C IFARagainst adversarial (cid:96) 2 and (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations.
For that purpose, we train a linear classiﬁer parametrized by coefﬁcients W and offsets b on top of frozen BYORL representations, following the procedure described in Kolesnikov et al.
; Kornblith et al.
; Zhang et al.
; Chen et al.
(2020b).
The linear model is either trained in a non-robust manner (i.e., min W , b E ( x ,y ) ∈D
ˆ l ( W e ( x ; θ ) + b , y ) ) or adversarially (i.e., min W , b E ( x ,y ) ∈D max δ ∈ S ˆ l ( W e ( x + δ ; θ ) + b , y ) ).
We then freeze the linear model and compute the accuracy of the combined model
W e ( x ; θ ) + b against adversarial attacks (i.e., we count a successful attack as a misclassiﬁcation).
In other words, we approximate the result of Eq.
1 using an inner-maximization procedure (i.e., adversarial attack).
In order to get faithful results, all models are evaluated using a strong attack which combines elements of the AutoAttack procedure (Croce & Hein, 2020) with the MultiTargeted attack (Gowal et al., 2019).
Namely, we use a sequence of AutoPGD on the cross-entropy loss withrestarts and 100 steps, AutoPGD on the difference of logits ratio loss with 5 restarts and 100 steps,
MultiTargeted on the margin loss with 20 restarts and 200 steps and Square (Andriushchenko et al., 2019)
, an efﬁcient black-box attack, with 5000 queries.
B A DDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS
In this section, we perform ablation studies on network architectures, strength of the attack used during representation learning, and color augmentation strength.
Network size.
In Table 3, we study the impact of model architectures on C IFAR -10 against (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15) = 8 / 255 .
We train robust representations using wider ResNet, as in (Chen et al., 2020b; Grill et al., 2020), with 34 layers and a width multiplier 1, 2 and 4, and denoted by ResNet34 × 1, ResNet34 × 2, ResNet34 × 4.
We observe that models increase performance in both clean and robust accuracy when model size increases.
Without using additional unlabeled data, the robust accuracy saturates when using ResNet34 × 2.
Hence, unless mentioned explicitly, in this paper, we use ResNet34 × 2 for settings without additional data.
[Table]
Attack strength.
Table 4 shows results of training robust representations using different attack strengths on C IFAR -10 against (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15)
= 8 / 255 .
We study the effect of using standard PGD, as well as its adaptive variant named AutoPGD (Croce & Hein, 2020), with different step sizes using ResNet34 × 2 models.
We observe that more robust representations are obtained as the attack strength increases.
Although this ﬁnding is similar to previous observations (Qin et al., 2019), we notice that robust representation learning is more prone to gradient masking (resulting from using weak attacks during training) and requires stronger attacks then typically used in classical adversarial training.
Throughout the paper, unless mentioned explicitly, we used AutoPGD withsteps.
[Table]
Impact of color augmentations.
In Chen et al.
(2020b) and Grill et al.
(2020), the authors demonstrate the importance of using color augmentations, which is composed color jittering and color dropping.
We follow the same setup as Chen et al.
(2020b) and Grill et al.
(2020), in Fig.
5, we perform an ablation study on the strength of color augmentations.
We use AutoPGD with 20 steps on a ResNet34 × 2 model.
We observe that BYORL is relatively stable in both clean and robust accuracy for color augmentation strength between 0.1 and 0.5.
In this paper, we had ﬁxed the color augmentation strength to be 0.5 across all the experiments.
A better choice in retrospect would have been 0.3 which provides an improvement of 0.34%.
[Figure] [Figure]
C IFAR -100.
We repeat the experiments in subsection 4.2 on C IFAR -100.
For C IFAR -100, we expected BYORL to perform signiﬁcantly better than UAT-FT as the number of classes is ten times larger than on C IFAR -10.
However, Fig. 6 shows a more nuanced story and remains similar to Fig. 4.
It is interesting to observe that BYORL tends to struggle with (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15) = 8 / 255 .
As it has long been known that (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15) = 8 / 255 are harder to cope with than (cid:96) 2 norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15)
= 128 / 255 , we posit that, at equal model capacity, the pretext task (consisting of augmenting two different views of the same image) needs to be slightly modiﬁed to accommodate the more difﬁcult threat.
Indeed, the investigation on the impact of the color augmentation strength showed that it is possible to improve robust representations by reducing the strength of these augmentations.
I MAGE N ET .
We repeat a subset of the experiments from subsection 4.2 on I MAGE N ET .
For
I MAGE N ET , we train BYORL representations with a ResNet 50 × 4 for 300 epochs.
Following Grill et al.
and
Chen et al.
(2020b), we add random blur to the image preprocessing pipeline.
We also change the learning rate from 2 to 1 .
2 and the initial target network weight decay rate τ to 0 .
We use a batch size of 1024 split over 128 Google Cloud TPU v 3 cores.
All other parameters remain identical to other experiments.
Table 5 shows that BYORL is capable of learning robust representations for larger datasets such as
I MAGE N ET .
In particular, our best model achieves 41.83% robust accuracy against (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations of size (cid:15) = 4 / 255 (as evaluated by the combined set of attacks consisting of AutoPGD on the cross-entropy loss with 5 restarts and 100 steps, AutoPGD on the difference of logits ratio loss with 5 restarts and 100 steps).
Note that classical adversarial training achieves 39.7% (when evaluated against PGD on the cross-entropy loss with 1 restart and 100 steps), while the current state-of-the-art is 47.00% (Qin et al., 2019).
While BYORL does not reach the state-of-the-art in robustness, it is remarkable to see it perform so well with only 1% of available labels and reach 29.49% robust accuracy (e.g., classical non-robust supervised ﬁnetuning achieves 22% top-1 accuracy when no adversarial perturbations are present as stated in Grill et al., 2020).
Finally, these results also conﬁrm the results from Table 2 whereby training a non-robust linear classiﬁer still achieves signiﬁcant robust accuracy. T RAINING OF
[Table]
Transfer without adversarial training against (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations.
In subsection 4.2, we evaluate how robust accuracy degrades when linear classiﬁers trained on top of BYORL representations are not trained robustly.
In Table 2, we evaluate models trained against (cid:96)norm-bounded perturbations.
In Table 6, we evaluate models trained against (cid:96) ∞ norm-bounded perturbations.
In both cases, non-robust downstream classiﬁers are able to exhibit non-trivial levels of robustness that remain within a few percentage points of the robustly trained ones
[Table] [Table]
C A DDITIONAL FIGURES
[Figure] [Figure]
D A NALYSIS OF RESULTING MODELS
In this section, we perform analysis on the adversarial loss landscape from the BYORL models in (cid:96)and (cid:96) ∞ cases to further examine whether adversarial accuracy is due to gradient masking (Uesato et al., 2018; Athalye et al., 2018).
The analysis made here complements the use of the black-box
Square (Andriushchenko et al., 2019) attack used by AutoAttack within our evaluation pipeline.
For generating a loss landscape, we vary the input along a linear space deﬁned by the worse perturbations found by PGD ( u direction) and a random Rademacher direction ( v direction).
The u and v axes represent the magnitude of the perturbation added in each of these directions respectively and the z axis represents the adversarial margin loss (Carlini & Wagner, 2017b).
(cid:96) 2 model.
In Fig.
9, we show the adversarial loss landscapes of 4 randomly selected C IFAR -10 test images from the BYORL model trained against (cid:96) 2 perturbations on both C IFAR -10 and a subset of 80M-T INY I MAGES .
The loss surfaces are generally smooth in Fig.
9, which provides evidence that the model performance is not due to gradient obfuscation.
We also note that our rigorous evaluation already uses a black-box attack (i.e., Square Andriushchenko et al., 2019).
(cid:96) ∞ model.
Fig.
10 shows the adversarial loss landscapes of 4 randomly selected C IFAR -10 test images from the BYORL model trained against (cid:96) ∞ perturbations on both C IFAR -10 and a subset of 80M-T INY I MAGES .
We observe that the loss landscapes are generally smooth in Figure 10, which further suggests the model performance is not due to gradient obfuscation.
We also note that our rigorous evaluation already uses a black-box attack (i.e., Square by Andriushchenko et al., 2019).
[Figure] [Figure]
[Figure] [Figure]
[Figure]
8/ l ( x ; y )airplane automobile truck (a) airplane -8/2558/ -8/2558/ l ( x ; y )dog frog (b) frog -8/2558/ -8/2558/ l ( x ; y ) cat frog truck
[Figure]
[Figure]
-8/2558/ -8/2558/ l ( x ; y ) dog
[Figure]
frog