Adversarial Robustness Assessment: Why both $L_0$ and $L_\infty$ Attacks
  Are Necessary
  There exists a vast number of adversarial attacks and defences for machine
learning algorithms of various types which makes assessing the robustness of
algorithms a daunting task. To make matters worse, there is an intrinsic bias
in these adversarial algorithms. Here, we organise the problems faced: a) Model
Dependence, b) Insufficient Evaluation, c) False Adversarial Samples, and d)
Perturbation Dependent Results). Based on this, we propose a model agnostic
dual quality assessment method, together with the concept of robustness levels
to tackle them. We validate the dual quality assessment on state-of-the-art
neural networks (WideResNet, ResNet, AllConv, DenseNet, NIN, LeNet and CapsNet)
as well as adversarial defences for image classification problem. We further
show that current networks and defences are vulnerable at all levels of
robustness. The proposed robustness assessment reveals that depending on the
metric used (i.e., $L_0$ or $L_\infty$), the robustness may vary significantly.
Hence, the duality should be taken into account for a correct evaluation.
Moreover, a mathematical derivation, as well as a counter-example, suggest that
$L_1$ and $L_2$ metrics alone are not sufficient to avoid spurious adversarial
samples. Interestingly, the threshold attack of the proposed assessment is a
novel $L_\infty$ black-box adversarial method which requires even less
perturbation than the One-Pixel Attack (only $12\%$ of One-Pixel Attack's
amount of perturbation) to achieve similar results.
  Code is available at http://bit.ly/DualQualityAssessment.
