Table 2. Comparison of the results for...

Table 2.

Comparison of the results for CL and different self-supervised AT methods. The methods in the bottom-half used the pseudo labels (PLs) (Fan et al., 2021)

	CIFAR-10		CIFAR-100
Methods	RA	SA	RA	SA	Memory (MB)	Time
SimCLR*	0.03	91.77	0.48	66.86	6,409	7.7 h
RoCL* (⁠ $K = 7$ ⁠)	39.93	78.37	18.79	49.53	19,101	2 d 9 h
ACL*	44.23	79.04	20.97	47.51	11,649	2d 2.1 h
DynACL*	46.82	79.10	23.21	47.20	12,023	2d 2.6 h
Ours (AT, $K = 3$ ⁠)	48.74	79.34	26.49	47.06	6,409	20 h
Ours (TRADES)	50.21	77.49	27.62	48.96	8,677	1 d 12.4 h
Ours (AT, $B = 512$ ⁠)	51.15	76.90	27.21	45.12	6,409	1 d 4.6 h
Ours (AT, $B = 256$ ⁠)	50.55	76.33	27.10	45.08	5,989	1 d 1.8 h
AdvCL (Fan et al., 2021)	50.45	80.85	27.67	48.34	20,875	3 d
AdvCL*	50.25	80.58	27.12	47.79
Ours (TRADES) + PL	51.29	80.89	28.05	48.46	11,407	2 d 9 h
Ours (AT) + PL	52.52	80.36	28.01	48.05	8,985	2 d 0.6 h

	CIFAR-10		CIFAR-100
Methods	RA	SA	RA	SA	Memory (MB)	Time
SimCLR*	0.03	91.77	0.48	66.86	6,409	7.7 h
RoCL* ( $K = 7$ )	39.93	78.37	18.79	49.53	19,101	2 d 9 h
ACL*	44.23	79.04	20.97	47.51	11,649	2d 2.1 h
DynACL*	46.82	79.10	23.21	47.20	12,023	2d 2.6 h
Ours (AT, $K = 3$ )	48.74	79.34	26.49	47.06	6,409	20 h
Ours (TRADES)	50.21	77.49	27.62	48.96	8,677	1 d 12.4 h
Ours (AT, $B = 512$ )	51.15	76.90	27.21	45.12	6,409	1 d 4.6 h
Ours (AT, $B = 256$ )	50.55	76.33	27.10	45.08	5,989	1 d 1.8 h
AdvCL (Fan et al., 2021)	50.45	80.85	27.67	48.34	20,875	3 d
AdvCL*	50.25	80.58	27.12	47.79
Ours (TRADES) + PL	51.29	80.89	28.05	48.46	11,407	2 d 9 h
Ours (AT) + PL	52.52	80.36	28.01	48.05	8,985	2 d 0.6 h

Note(s):

*Indicates our results. The highest RAs (%) are italic. Memory and computationcosts are evaluated

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable