The Power of Decaying Steps: Enhancing Attack Stability and Transferability for Sign-based Optimizers
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Crafting adversarial examples can be formulated as an optimization problem. While sign-based optimizers such as I-FGSM and MI-FGSM have become the de facto standard for the induced optimization problems, there still exist several unsolved problems in theoretical grounding and practical reliability especially in non-convergence and instability, which inevitably influences their transferability. Contrary to the expectation, we observe that the attack success rate may degrade sharply when more number of iterations are conducted. In this paper, we address these issues from an optimization perspective. By reformulating the sign-based optimizer as a specific coordinate-wise gradient descent, we argue that one cause for non-convergence and instability is their non-decaying step-size scheduling. Based upon this viewpoint, we propose a series of new attack algorithms that enforce Monotonically Decreasing Coordinate-wise Step-sizes (MDCS) within sign-based optimizers. Typically, we further provide theoretical guarantees proving that MDCS-MI attains an optimal convergence rate of $O(1/\sqrt{T})$, where $T$ is the number of iterations. Extensive experiments on image classification and cross-modal retrieval tasks demonstrate that our approach not only significantly improves transferability but also enhances attack stability compared to state-of-the-art sign-based methods.
Results and benchmarks
Crafting adversarial examples can be formulated as an optimization problem.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adversarial robustness | VGG16 | VGG16 | 99.9 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 70/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- Start with framework-native implementations (e.g. PyTorch optimizer module, Optax, or Transformers training loops).
- Replicate the paper ablation settings first, then compare against modern baselines.
Time to first repro: a few hours
This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Framework baselines
- PyTorch Adam optimizer docs
Reference implementation of Adam in PyTorch.
- Optax Adam optimizer docs
JAX/Flax baseline for Adam variants.
- Keras Adam optimizer docs
TensorFlow/Keras baseline for Adam.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Image classification, Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Stochastic optimization
Domains
Computer vision, Information Retrieval
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.