Summary and Contributions: This paper tackles the non-interactive black-box attacks where attackers generate adversarial examples without any access to the target model. Based on theoretical analysis of this min-max two-player problem, it proposes a framework called "adversarial example games (AEG)" to draft transferable attacks to the entire function classes.
Strengths: 1. Compared with white-box or queryable black-box settings, black-box non-interactive setting is more challenging and less studied. Works to investigate adversarial attacks under this setting would benefit this community. 2. This paper formulates the transferable attack to "a certain hypothesis class of classifiers" as a zero-sum game between the adversarial generator and the classification model, which is new. It shows that the optimal adversarial distribution is the one that maximize a form of restricted conditional entropy over the target dataset.
Weaknesses: 1. In Appendix A, the proof of Proposition 1 is questionable, the Theorem 2 of "K. Fan. Minimax theorems"  says the min-max problem is equivalent to the max-min problem when the two-variable function is convex-concave. In the definition of $\Phi(f, g)$ in Eq. (AEG), it requires $\Phi$ to be convex on $f$ and concave on $g$. However, this is not satisfied when $f$ is the logit function defined by a deep nonlinear neural network. If Proposition 1 is not satisfied in the general case, then the existence of Nash Equilibrium cannot be claimed. 2. The gap, or the relationship, between the theory and the practice should be analyzed. There is a big jump from Section 3 to Section 4. How the architecture in Fig. 4 solves the AEG problem and how the optimizer (like Extra-Adam used here) is able to find the equilibrium should be briefly discussed in the mainbody of the paper. 3. The experimental results are weak. I cannot see the advantages of the proposed AEG over the baselines in all three parts. It is natural to ask this question: why should we use AEG instead of the traditional transfer attacks? >>> Post-rebuttal Regarding the Proposition 1, I agree with the authors in the rebuttal that \Phi is convex-concave w.r.t. **f, p_g**. However, the statement of proposition 1 uses g instead of p_g, as g is a function while p_g is a probability measure. I think function \Phi is not concave w.r.t. g, because the mapping from g to p_g is not linear. The validity of proposition 1 is still questionable. Regarding the experiments, the authors indeed answer some of my questions. But I am still concerned that AEG does not perform better than baselines in considerable cases. I am not saying AEG has no benefit in any setting, but I don't think AEG is better than traditional transfer attacks.
Correctness: I have a question regarding the Proposition 1, please see the previous section. The empirical methodology part is correct in general. In line 246, the authors say it is beneficial to include a pre-trained and fixed $f_s$ as a mechanism to incorporate prior knowledge during AEG optimization. However, I cannot find more information regarding this. There is no ablation study on this, or there is no more information about the settings, like architectures, of $f_s$. Minor: The adversarial budget $\epsilon$ used for CIFAR10 in the repo https://github.com/MadryLab/cifar10_challenge is 8/255, which is used in most literatures. The adversarial budget in this paper is slightly different, as 0.03125 = 8/256.
Clarity: This paper is well written in general. There is a big gap between the theoretical section and the experimental section. I think the high-level architecture used in the experiments, like Fig.4, should be included in the main text.
Relation to Prior Work: The previous related works are discussed comprehensively in this paper. It is clear.
Additional Feedback: Due to the comments, questions and concerns above, I don't think this paper is ready to get published on NeurIPS and my overall score is, unfortunately, leaning towards a reject. However, I am very interested in the technical part of this work and happy to discuss with the authors. I welcome authors to clear my concern or point out some incorrect statements I made if any. I will re-evaluate the work after the rebuttal period. >>> Post-rebuttal Due to the concerns indicated in the weakness post-rebuttal section, I keep my evaluation the same.
Summary and Contributions: This paper proposes adversarial example games, which targets a No-Box setting, where an attacker is trained without any access to the model, even on the query level. The adversarial example games is proposed in this setting, where the attacker try the maximize the power of attack on every possible model in the hypothesis set.
Strengths: 1. The No-Box attack setting is very novel. 2. The adversarial example game definition is sound. 3. On the simple setup of logistic regression with 2 classes, The paper obtains nice solution of the proposed optimization problem.
Weaknesses: 1. While the No-Box idea is very interesting, this attack scenario supposes the attacker can access a dataset from the data distribution, which is the same distribution from the training dataset. This requirement is still strong. For a well-generalized model, for example a CNN model on MNIST can often get 99% accuracy on the test dataset, it's very similar as having the model.. 2. The convergence of the optimization process is unclear. The paper claim the game will converge to an optimal attacker and a robust classifier. However, for a nonconvex model (i.e. DNN) that has a nonconvex loss, there's no guarantee that the optimization process will end well. 3. The experiment result doesn't show the AEG framework achieves much better result. The baselines are designed for white/black-box setting and then adapted to the No-box setting, and some of the attacks gets better result on more models. Also the method performs bad on transfering from the WR model. While the authors argue it's a special case on VGG-16, the performance on RN-18 is also not good, which shares a similar structure to WR. 4. The method is expensive. Combining these points, the significance of the proposed method is unclear. While the design is very nice, the optimization of AEG doesn't seem to work very well on real complicated models. --------------------------------------Post review--------------------------------------- Generally the authors provide feedback to my concerns. I don't feel my concerns are completely answered though: 1. For the answer "The NoBox attack demands the training set", the authors argue NoBox attack has a similar level of requirement as previous black-box attack. 2. Since the convergence of the method is unsure, there is no evidence the attack works better than some greedy approach, for example, train several models and generate some adversarial sample among all of them. 3. AEG is expensive. Combining these points, I feel while AEG has nice ideas, it's unnecessarily complicated for the current problem.
Relation to Prior Work: Yes.
Additional Feedback: I believe this paper has a wrong subject area. It should be in "Social Aspects of Machine Learning -> Privacy, Anonymity, and Security".
Summary and Contributions: The authors introduce the problem of a NoBox attack. This is meant as an extension of the black box attack where not even access to input-output pairs a given. Instead only the training and test dataset is provided. The main idea is to use a latent variable to train an adversarial generator and to use a large class of different architectures to train this generator.
Strengths: Instead of training one proxy network and computing universal adversarial examples with respect to this network a distribution of network architectures is used.
Weaknesses: * Proposition 1 seems to be false. In order to replace the minmax with a maxmin problem it is not enough to show that the domain over which \phi is minimized is convex. \phi itself has to be a convex function on this convex domain. It is neither clear nor proven why this should be the case. * Section 4.1 only studies linear classifiers. Therefore, Proposition 2 is only true in this context. This is not made sufficiently clear in the phrasing of Proposition 2. * Q3 of Section 5 claims to attack robust classifiers. Nonetheless no provably robust classifier is attacked
Correctness: See above.
Clarity: The sentences are well structured.
Relation to Prior Work: I am not missing any relevant paper.
Additional Feedback: Post-rebuttal comments: My main concerns were with respect to Proposition 1 and 2. The rebuttal did not address these concerns properly. If X is a random variable, g(X) is a different random variable with its distribution p_g. It is not clear why the authors identify p_g with g in their rebuttal. Overall, the presented math is below the quality that people would expect from NeurIPS papers. Therefore, I recommend to reject the paper.
Summary and Contributions: This work proposed NoBox, short for non-interactive BlackBox attack. It aims to attack a known function family F at its entirety, which differs from the conventional adversarial attack focusing on testing instances and specific architectures. The mathematical justification and experiments are both presented.
Strengths: This paper does have a novel perspective: attacking a function space at its whole. The mathematical proof looks sound to me. At the nash equilibrium, the attack is theoretically effective to any function from a given class. With that being said, the threat model is interesting and may open a new venue of research.
Weaknesses: I have a few concerns regarding this paper. 1. How practical/realistic is the threat model? In the paper, chapter 2.2, the NoBox attack demands the training set. In the real world however, isn't the training set even more precious than the trained models? 2. In the AEG objective, the generator needs to get the gradient to be trained. Would AEG still applicable to the non-differentiable robust classifiers, such as:  Countering Adversarial Images using Input Transformations  THERMOMETER ENCODING: ONE HOT WAY TO RESIST ADVERSARIAL EXAMPLES  Retrieval-Augmented Convolutional Neural Networks against Adversarial Examples The common point of these approaches is they all incorporate some sort of in-differentiability. 3. The experiments. (Maybe my misunderstanding) Many published papers in this field used ImageNet (and the top-1 score) to benchmark the effectiveness of the attack or the robustness of the defense. However this paper the experiments are limited to only CIFAR and MNIST. 4. One experiment I'd like to request: (i)- get a model trained on some dataset at epoch N, N+1, N+2... N+k (ii)- use the generator to generate pertubed imagess to attack all of them. (iii)- show the effectiveness of the attack. This should be a more realistic scenario and it aligns with the main point. 5. A portion of the experiment has compared the NoBox attack to the other attacks. These are generally under different threat model assumptions. However the main claim of the paper is that the NoBox is capable of attacking different models in the same function space. It would be better if the authors can present the NoBox's effectiveness attacking more diversified trained neural network models.
Relation to Prior Work: Yes