AI Paper Atlas

Research map / Adversarial robustness and security / Attacks on text and graphs

Attacks and defenses in sequential settings

Study adversarial attacks on RL, online learners and foundation models.

96 accepted papers at ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, CVPR and AAAI (2016–2026) · an approach in Attacks on text and graphs, keyword cluster “generative · purification · diffusion”

State History Tried Checklist Preprints Who Export

Where it stands

Not enough benchmark data Fewer than four papers report the same benchmark, so there is no record to follow.

31 papers in 2023–24 and 31 in 2025–26 (at ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, CVPR and AAAI); its share of the topic shrank, from 11.1% to 6.4%.

How this is decided

A benchmark is tracked when at least four papers of this approach report their own method on the same dataset and metric in at least two different years. Its record is the best number reported up to 2024 compared with the best reported in 2025–26: still improving means at least 1% better, flat means at most 0.2% better with at least two papers from 2025–26 trying. Numbers on a different scale from the rest (a fraction among percentages) and far outliers are left out. Results come from different papers with different setups, so they are signals, not head-to-head comparisons. The share of papers is counted at ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, CVPR and AAAI.

How it got here

2016: 1162017: 1172018: 2182019: 4192020: 9202021: 8212022: 9222023: 15232024: 16242025: 11252026: 2026

Most cited paper of each year

Earliest papers here

What has been tried

69 papers here report 645 measured changes (a component added, removed or swapped, compared with a baseline): helped 59%, no clear effect 9%, hurt 24%, mixed 8%. Papers mostly publish changes that helped, so "helped" is over-represented.

Ablations in recent papers

What was changedMeasured onResultEffectPaper
Add the intention policy πθDrawer Open, Drawer Close, Faucet Open, Faucet Close · attack success rateDrawer Open: 21.7% -> 99.1%; Drawer Close: 8.0% -> 80.9%; Faucet Open: 0.0% -> 84.4%; Faucet Close: 13.0% -> 95.1%HelpedRAT: Adversarial Attacks on Deep Reinforcement Agents for Targeted Behaviors (AAAI 2025 · 7 citations)
flip bits in scale factors rather than only weightsImageNet, 4-bit, Deit-small · ASR (%)88.7 -> 98.2HelpedYour Scale Factors are My Weapon: Targeted Bit-Flip Attacks on Vision Transformers via Scale Factor Manipulation (CVPR 2025 · 4 citations)
Add stronger data augmentations with adversarial noises generated by a simple two-layer networkRegion-16 and Err-min(S) · test accuracy77.20 -> 93.51; 75.62 -> 88.01HelpedDetection and Defense of Unlearnable Examples (AAAI 2024 · 4 citations)
Replace the surrogate attacker loss with cross-entropy lossTraining · poisoned loss convergenceHurtGame-Theoretic Unlearnable Example Generator (AAAI 2024 · 4 citations)
Replace the mean of squared deviations with median absolute deviation (MAD) for estimating batch varianceTTA benchmark experiments · model performanceHurtMedBN: Robust Test-Time Adaptation against Malicious Test Samples (CVPR 2024 · 3 citations)
Add gradient robust loss to MI-FGSMMedical SAM (CT-Scans) · mDSC40.83 -> 6.34HelpedTransferable Adversarial Attacks on SAM and Its Downstream Models (NeurIPS 2024 · 3 citations)
Use BorderLIME instead of standard LIMENeural Networks · Proof generation time1.17 ± 10^{-2} -> 4.85 ± 10^{-2} minsHurtExpProof : Operationalizing Explanations for Confidential Models with ZKPs (ICML 2025 · 1 citation)
Increase the augmentation strength in AUE generationCIFAR-10, SimCLR · accuracy (%)83.5 -> 64.1 -> 56.7 -> 52.4HelpedEfficient Availability Attacks against Supervised and Contrastive Learning Simultaneously (NeurIPS 2024 · 1 citation)
Increase perturbation budget proportionAblation study · accuracyHurtStop Diverse OOD Attacks: Knowledge Ensemble for Reliable Defense (AAAI 2025 · 0 citations)
add the self-supervised representation networkPendulum · worst-case reward-91.15 ± 58.15 -> -87.92 ± 53.24HelpedRobustZero: Enhancing MuZero Reinforcement Learning Robustness to State Perturbations (ICML 2025 · 0 citations)
Remove the instruction loss from RNP+A2I trainingBeer-related datasets, sparsity about 20% · attack success rateMixedAdversarial Cooperative Rationalization: The Risk of Spurious Correlations in Even Clean Datasets (ICML 2025 · 0 citations)
Use PatternTraces alone instead of CombinedTracesQUT-DV25 test · accuracy95.99 -> 94.62HurtQUT-DV25: A Dataset for Dynamic Analysis of Next-Gen Software Supply Chain Attacks (NeurIPS 2025 · 0 citations)

What reviewers will expect

Datasets and baselines named in the 14 papers of this approach from 2025–2026 that have a full-text summary. Leaving out the common ones is a frequent review question.

Datasets

  • CIFAR-10 · 2 of 14 papers
  • ImageNet · 2 of 14 papers

Baselines

  • ATLA-PPO · 2 of 14 papers

Recent preprints

Loading recent arXiv preprints…

    Who publishes on it

    Institutions on the most papers of this approach since 2023 (of 62 papers; from OpenAlex and the papers' affiliations).

    Use it

    Download BibTeX of 40 key papersOpen the topic in the interactive map

    Get alerts. Describe your idea in scime atlas and save it (free scime account): you get a weekly email when new preprints land close to it.

    Same keyword cluster

    Elsewhere in the topic

    Benchmark numbers, ablations and baseline numbers are extracted by AI from each paper's full text and can be wrong; the paper is the authority. Data: results index of 2026-11-02, citation counts from OpenAlex (2026-10-09).

    Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

    Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy