Margin-Drop Coordinates for Cross-Budget Robustness Evaluation

Adversarial robustness is commonly evaluated with predefined attack ensembles, such as AutoAttack, at a single perturbation budget $\varepsilon$ and on a selective choice of perturbation norms. We argue this formulation is fundamentally limited. First, robustness--perturbation curves may intersect or decay at different rates across models, making single-$\varepsilon$ rankings unstable. Second, current ensembles provide no evidence of optimality, leaving an unknown gap to worst-case performance. Third, fixed attack configurations provide no systematic control over the trade-off between attack strength and evaluation cost. To address these limitations, we introduce a unified evaluation framework based on a comprehensive pool of minimum-norm attacks and robustness--perturbation curves across $\ell_0$, $\ell_1$, $\ell_2$ and $\ell_\infty$ norms. We define the attack frontier as the worst-case robustness estimate the attack pool produces against a model. We then formalize evaluation as a frontier-approximation problem, constructing minimum-norm attack ensembles, optimized subsets of the comprehensive pool, that approach the frontier under a controllable query budget, with larger budgets monotonically tightening the estimate. Furthermore, we define the defense frontier as the maximum robustness across the model set at each perturbation size. We finally propose the Defense Optimality Index to rank defenses by their gap to the defense frontier, providing a ranking without selecting a reference $\varepsilon$. On CIFAR-10 and ImageNet, our ensembles match or exceed AutoAttack on most defenses at every budget tier, at fixed and controllable query cost, offering practitioners a query-controlled, curve-based alternative to fixed-$\varepsilon$ evaluation.

Robustness evaluation must examine diverse visual perturbations, while benchmarks cover only some real-world conditions and physical testing is costly. Paired evaluations link clean and perturbed predictions for the same image, capturing changes in correctness, confidence, and acceptance beyond aggregate accuracy. We investigate how this image correspondence supports two needs in robustness evaluation: interpreting paired evaluation results and prioritizing samples for physical testing. To interpret paired evaluation results, we fix both sets of prediction records and vary their correspondence within each class. We prove that classwise correct-correct counts give the same sharp bounds on lost acceptance and mean true-class probability decrease among retained-correct inputs as any feasible five-state refinement. Distinguishing persistent from changed wrong answers can further constrain accepted-error transitions, while shared correspondence can establish policy orderings left unresolved by separate cost intervals. To prioritize samples for physical testing, we retain each image's synthetic responses and rank clean-correct images by their mean true-class probability under corruption. Across 44 classifiers, testing the highest-risk 20% finds 67% and 45% of failures under mild screen and print recaptures, versus 58% and 36% for clean confidence and 60% and 37% for an equal-size natural-transformation average. With both probability averaging and an A3Rank scoring adaptation, the tested corruption set yields higher mean failure recall than the natural-transform set; differences between scores depend on the source and budget. Together, these findings show that the value of correspondence depends on the evaluation objective: classwise counts suffice for specified reliability bounds, while image-specific synthetic responses improve the allocation of physical tests within the evaluated pool.

Post-hoc feature attribution methods are widely deployed in safety-critical vision systems, yet their stability under realistic input perturbations remains poorly characterized. Existing metrics evaluate explanations primarily under additive noise, collapse stability to a single scalar, and fail to condition on prediction preservation, conflating explanation fragility with model sensitivity. We introduce the Feature Attribution Stability Suite (FASS), a benchmark that enforces prediction-invariance filtering, decomposes stability into three complementary metrics: structural similarity, rank correlation, and top-k Jaccard overlap-and evaluates across geometric, photometric, and compression perturbations. Evaluating four attribution methods (Integrated Gradients, GradientSHAP, Grad-CAM, LIME) across four architectures and three datasets-ImageNet-1K, MS COCO, and CIFAR-10, FASS shows that stability estimates depend critically on perturbation family and prediction-invariance filtering. Geometric perturbations expose substantially greater attribution instability than photometric changes, and without conditioning on prediction preservation, up to 99% of evaluated pairs involve changed predictions. Under this controlled evaluation, we observe consistent method-level trends, with Grad-CAM achieving the highest stability across datasets.