Augmentation-Guided Adversarial Training via Local Stability-Based Sample Selection
Authors: Daniel Agyei Asante, Mark Tetteh, Deborah Asamoah, Bernard Asante, Regina Esi Turkson
Organizations: Ohio University, United States · University of Nebraska Omaha, United States · University of Toronto, Canada · University of Cape Coast, Ghana
Adversarial training remains one of the most effective defenses against adversarial attacks, but its standard PGD-based training is computationally expensive because adversarial examples are generated for every training sample. Selective adversarial training reduces this cost by perturbing only a subset of samples. However, existing selective techniques typically rely on point-wise difficulty signals such as loss, entropy, margin, or gradients. We show that these point-wise criteria do not capture local instability in a sample's neighborhood. Motivated by this, we propose Augmentation-Guided Adversarial Training (AGAT), a selective adversarial training framework that uses augmentation-induced local variation to allocate samples with unstable neighborhoods for adversarial training. AGAT ranks samples using Augmentation-based Local Stability (ALS), a lightweight score that measures the normalized change in model logits between an input and its label-preserving augmented variant. Experiments across different architectures on MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny-ImageNet-200 demonstrate that AGAT achieves comparable or higher robust accuracy while applying adversarial supervision to only 20-30% of the training samples in each minibatch. AGAT also requires less training time than all other adversarial training baselines in the computational cost evaluation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Conceptual illustration of point-wise and ALS-based sample selection. Left: (a) Point-wise selection ranks samples using information at the original input location, such as loss, margin, or confidence. As a result, a sample may have low loss or a large prediction margin while still lying near a region where the model’s output changes sharply, which we refer to as a hidden cliff. Right: (b) ALS-based selection probes the neighborhood of each sample using a label-preserving augmentation T(x) . This allows ALS to detect local instability that point-wise selection can miss and to guide adversarial supervision toward regions where the classifier changes sharply.
si=∥xi−xi∥2+η∥fθ(xi)−fθ(xi)∥2
Algorithm 1 AGAT
Checkpoint
Mean
Median
90th pct.
95th pct.
99th pct.
Max
Epoch 8
0.198
0.179
0.340
0.398
0.535
2.065
Epoch 12
0.247
0.223
0.417
0.488
0.662
2.793
Epoch 16
0.266
0.239
0.445
0.519
0.693
3.053
Table 1: ALS score percentiles on CIFAR-10 computed from models saved at different epochs.
Figure 2: ALS analysis on CIFAR-10 at epoch 12. (a) Training samples sorted by ALS score. (b) Class distribution of the top-30% ALS-selected subset.
Method
τ
Clean Accuracy (%)
PGD-50 (%)
Clean Training
−
99.36±0.01
0.29±0.07
Full PGD-AT
−
98.71±0.04
93.86±0.06
IDS
30
98.96±0.04
93.35±0.02
IDS
20
97.88±0.28
89.19±1.49
Random Selection
30
97.36±0.00
91.66±0.07
Random Selection
20
97.29±0.08
91.82±0.09
Table 2: MNIST classification performance using the Madry CNN model. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation over three runs.
Method
τ
Clean Accuracy (%)
PGD-50 (%)
Clean Training
−
83.46±0.30
0.00±0.00
Full PGD-AT
−
73.87±0.04
36.09±0.28
IDS
30
71.69±0.04
32.21±1.07
IDS
20
44.66±2.32
29.52±0.16
Random Selection
30
72.76±0.32
31.00±0.59
Random Selection
20
71.44±0.66
31.95±0.08
Table 3: CIFAR-10 classification performance using PreActResNet-18. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation over three runs.
Method
τ
Clean Accuracy (%)
PGD-50 (%)
Clean Training
−
58.46±0.32
0.00±0.00
Full PGD-AT
−
43.54±0.07
14.21±0.00
IDS
30
45.45±0.70
13.23±0.10
IDS
20
39.39±0.14
13.21±0.05
Random Selection
30
42.10±1.05
8.73±0.49
Random Selection
20
42.31±0.19
10.22±0.58
Table 4: CIFAR-100 classification performance using PreActResNet-18. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation over three runs.
Method
τ
Clean Accuracy (%)
PGD-50 (%)
Clean Training
−
44.53±5.01
0.00±0.00
Full PGD-AT
−
37.18±0.15
8.81±0.03
IDS
30
33.27±0.70
7.39±0.01
IDS
20
26.33±0.70
7.72±0.11
Random Selection
30
30.82±0.31
7.83±0.54
Random Selection
20
28.97±0.06
8.79±0.13
Table 5: Tiny-ImageNet-200 classification performance using PreActResNet-18. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation over three runs.
Method
τ (%)
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
Tiny-ImageNet-200
Clean Training
−
3.25±0.01
8.07±0.02
64.68±2.84
Full PGD-AT
−
18.73±0.01
36.63±0.01
230.21±0.93
IDS
30
23.99±0.06
23.73±0.00
250.73±3.36
IDS
20
24.18±0.18
23.97±0.07
247.51±2.58
Margin-Based
30
98.61±0.75
95.21±0.40
451.97±9.16
Margin-Based
20
99.94±1.32
100.09±0.85
403.07±2.53
Table 6: Total training runtime of AGAT and the baselines on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny-ImageNet-200 using PreActResNet-18. Results are reported in minutes as mean ± standard deviation over three independent runs.
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.
Building on a probabilistic perspective in which adversarial examples arise from the overlap between a distance-based distribution pdis and a victim-classifier-induced distribution pvic, we start from a simple intuition: adversarial examples become harder to generate when these two distributions are pushed apart, as their overlap becomes smaller, thereby increasing robustness. This intuition naturally motivates a KL-based robustness objective. We then prove that KL(pdis∥pvic)−logZvic is a lower bound on probabilistic robustness (PR), where Zvic denotes the normalizing constant of pvic. Since PR is generally intractable to compute directly, maximizing this KL-based lower bound provides a tractable surrogate objective for improving PR. We further show that this objective recovers a scaled form of adversarial training, offering a probabilistic interpretation of adversarial training and a principled route to robustness improvement. We call the resulting method probabilistic adversarial training. Experiments show that it consistently improves PR, and ablation studies demonstrate that the induced scaling factor can even enhance the PR of non-probabilistic adversarial training methods.
Adversarial Training (AT) is a leading defense against adversarial examples but often suffers from Catastrophic Overfitting (CO) in efficient single-step variants, where robustness to multi-step attacks collapses despite high single-step performance. We address this failure mode with two contributions. First, we formalize Epsilon Overfitting (EO), a perspective in which fixed perturbation magnitudes and directions exacerbate CO, and show that introducing perturbation variability significantly improves robust generalization across different architectures and datasets. Second, we propose PertAlign (Perturbation Alignment), a theoretically grounded, computationally negligible metric that predicts CO onset by measuring gradient alignment across attack stages. Leveraging these insights, we introduce SORA, an adaptive step-size AT method that dynamically adjusts perturbations based on loss surface geometry. SORA consistently prevents CO, achieves state-of-the-art robustness and clean accuracy, and generalizes across datasets and architectures using a single fixed set of hyperparameters, which is essential for applicability in fast AT. Extensive experiments on diverse datasets and architectures show that SORA matches or surpasses the robustness of prior methods while delivering higher clean accuracy and superior efficiency. Code is available at https://github.com/SecondOrderAT/SORA.