cs.CRJul 14, 2026

VanillaBench: The Hidden Accuracy Cost of Adversarial Robustness

Authors: Niklas Bunzel

Organizations: Fraunhofer SIT / TU Darmstadt / ATHENE · Darmstadt, Germany

Abstract

Adversarial robustness research has produced hundreds of defended models over the past decade, yet the literature almost universally reports robustness results in isolation: standard (clean) accuracy and adversarial accuracy of the robust model are shown, but the gap to the corresponding vanilla model is rarely quantified. We introduce VanillaBench, a systematic benchmark that makes this gap explicit. For every adversarially-trained model catalogued by RobustBench across four threat models, we compute the accuracy difference against multiple vanilla references from Papers with Code, computed over both all entries and no-extra-data entries, the best vanilla model as of the robust model's publication year, and an architecture-matched baseline. Across all 186 robust models, the mean delta clean relative to the best vanilla model ranges from -7.7 to -29.5 percentage points, and even the single most robust model per track still trails its temporal vanilla counterpart by 4.0-21.0 points. The architecture-matched comparison, which isolates the effect of adversarial training from architectural differences, reveals a mean gap of -3.5 to -17.5 points. Restricting this architecture-matched comparison to models whose vanilla accuracy is known for the exact same architecture, rather than approximated from a related one, narrows the gap to -4.0 to -14.0 points. These results demonstrate that the robustness-accuracy trade-off is substantially larger than what is typically conveyed by individual papers. This information is critical for practitioners and decision-makers. When deploying models in real-world settings, the accuracy cost of robustness directly affects business outcomes, yet current publications do not provide the vanilla baseline needed to assess it. We argue that future robustness evaluations should report vanilla-referenced accuracy gaps as a standard component.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 9, 2026cs.LG

Risk Under Pressure: Compute-Aware Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness in Language Models

Adversarial robustness evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically report attack success rate (ASR) under fixed query budgets, implicitly treating all attacks as equally costly. In practice, the computational expense of different attack strategies can vary by orders of magnitude. Consequently, ASR at a fixed budget can obscure the true effort required to jailbreak a model, thereby making it hard to determine whether an attack's cost justifies its payoff to the attacker. We propose a compute-aware evaluation framework based on computational pressure, measured in cumulative floating-point operations (FLOPs), as a proxy for adversarial effort. We introduce risk-compute curves, which map compute budgets to attack risk, and derive two metrics that summarize the average pressure required for a given attack to succeed. Across ten models spanning three families and four different stages in language model training and alignment, evaluated with three attack strategies (gradient-based, iterative refinement, and template-based) on two jailbreak robustness benchmarks, we find: (1) alignment training has non-monotonic effects on compute-space robustness; (2) scaling model size reduces gradient-based attack effectiveness but has limited impact on cheaper template-based attacks; (3) gradient-based attacks optimized on a surrogate model can transfer to a separate target model, providing a way to reduce attacker costs; (4) compute cost varies by up to ≈5×{\approx}5{\times} across harm categories within a single model; and (5) safety-aligned RL increases aggregate cost while leaving some categories disproportionately accessible. We release our framework to enable compute-aware risk assessment and evaluation.
Malikeh Ehghaghi, Boglárka Ecsedi, Marsha Chechik +1
Large Language Model EvaluationComputational Cost
AskPDF
Apr 29, 2026cs.CV

Robust Alignment: Harmonizing Clean Accuracy and Adversarial Robustness in Adversarial Training

Adversarial Training (AT) is one of the most effective methods for developing robust deep neural networks (DNNs). However, AT faces a trade-off problem between clean accuracy and adversarial robustness. In this work, we reveal a surprising phenomenon for the first time: Varying input perturbation intensities for training samples near decision boundaries in AT have minimal impact on model robustness. This finding directly exposes the inconsistency between accuracy and robustness score fluctuations, leading us to identify the misalignment between input and latent spaces as a critical driver of the robustness-accuracy trade-off. To mitigate this misalignment for harmonizing accuracy and robustness, we define Robust Alignment as a new AT target, encouraging the model perception to change with input perturbations provided the final label prediction remains unchanged, which can be achieved via two novel ideas. First, we suggest a reduced and fixed perturbation intensity for those boundary samples, which facilitates the model to utilize the perturbations as learnable patterns, instead of noises that complicate decision boundaries meaninglessly. Second, we propose a Domain Interpolation Consistency Adversarial Regularization (DICAR), based on rigorous theoretical derivations, which explicitly introduces semantic alignment between input and latent spaces into AT. Based on these two ideas, we end up with a new Robust Alignment Adversarial Training (RAAT) method, effectively harmonizing accuracy and robustness. Extensive experiments on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny-ImageNet with ResNet-18, PreActResNet-18, and WideResNet-28-10 demonstrate the effectiveness of RAAT in improving the trade-off beyond four common baselines and a total of 14 related state-of-the-art (SOTA) works.
Yanyun Wang, Qingqing Ye, Li Liu +2
Adversarial TransferabilityAdversarial TrainingDomain AdaptationHarmonization
AskPDF
Jun 19, 2026cs.LG

Robustness Cannot be Reduced to Regularization: Studying Adversarial Training Beyond the Linear Case

The vulnerability of ML models to adversarial examples has recently emerged as a major concern. While adversarial training is one of the most effective countermeasures to this issue, its high computational cost remains an obstacle to practical deployment. Recent progress in reducing this cost has relied, in the case of linear models, on a formal equivalence between the adversarial risk and a simpler form of regularized risk. This enabled significantly more efficient training procedures, which naturally raises the question of whether such an equivalence can be extended beyond linear models. In this work, we formally show that no such equivalence is possible for two-layer networks. Our proofs proceed via a reduction to key properties that fundamentally separate the adversarial risk from any simple regularized risk which would only exhibit a weak form of data dependence. Beyond this setting, we provide empirical evidence on Wide-ResNets indicating that the same type of impossibility persists in deeper and more expressive architectures.
David A. R. Robin, Rafael Pinot, Yann Chevaleyre
Adversarial TrainingAdversarial ExamplesRegularization TechniquesMachine Learning
AskPDF