Below are the abstract, introduction, and conclusion of a computer science research paper. Please summarize the main contribution of the work in a single sentence. Your response should include the summary and no additional text.

Paper text:

Neural networks are vulnerable to small adversarial perturbations.
While existing literature largely focused on the vulnerability of learned models, we demonstrate an intriguing phenomenon that adversarial robustness, unlike clean accuracy, is sensitive to the input data distribution.
Even a semantics-preserving transformations on the input data distribution can cause a significantly different robustness for the adversarially trained model that is both trained and evaluated on the new distribution.
We show this by constructing semantically- identical variants for MNIST and CIFAR10 respectively, and show that standardly trained models achieve similar clean accuracies on them, but adversarially trained models achieve significantly different robustness accuracies.
This counter-intuitive phenomenon indicates that input data distribution alone can affect the adversarial robustness of trained neural networks, not necessarily the tasks themselves.
Lastly, we discuss the practical implications on evaluating adversarial robustness, and make initial attempts to understand this complex phenomenon.
We study the relationship between adversarial robustness and the input data distribution.
We focus on the adversarial training method [3] , arguably the most popular defense method so far due to its simplicity, effectiveness and scalability.
Our main contribution is the finding that adversarial robustness is highly sensitive to the input data distribution:A semantically-lossless shift on the data distribution could result in a drastically different robustness for adversarially trained models.Note that this is different from the transferability of a fixed model that is trained on one data distribution but tested on another distribution.
Even retraining the model on the new data distribution may give us a completely different adversarial robustness on the same new distribution.
This is also in sharp contrast to the clean accuracy of standard training, which, as we show in later sections, is insensitive to such shifts.
To our best knowledge, our paper is the first work in the literature that demonstrates such sensitivity.
Such sensitivity raises the question of how to properly evaluate adversarial robustness.
In particular, the sensitivity of adversarial robustness suggests that certain datasets may not be sufficiently representative when benchmarking different robust learning algorithms.
It also raises serious concerns about the deployment of believed-to-be-robust training algorithm in a real product.
In a standard development procedure, various models would be prototyped and measured on the existing data.
However, the sensitivity of adversarial robustness makes the truthfulness of the performance estimations questionable, as one would expect future data to be slightly shifted.
We illustrate the practical implications in Section 3: the robust accuracy of PGD trained model is sensitive to gamma values of gamma-corrected CIFAR10 images.
This indicates that image datasets collected under different lighting conditions may have different robustness properties.Finally, our finding opens up a new angle and provides novel insights to the adversarial vulnerability problem, complementing several recent works on the issue of data distributions' influences on robustness.
[6] hypothesizes that there is an intrinsic tradeoff between clean accuracy and adversarial robustness.
Our studies complement this result, showing that there are different levels of tradeoffs depending on the characteristics of input data distribution, under the same learning settings (training algorithm, model and training set size).
[4] shows that different data distributions could have drastically different properties of adversarially robust generalization, theoretically on Bernoulli vs mixtures of Gaussians, and empirically on standard benchmark datasets.
From the sensitivity perspective, we demonstrate that being from completely different distributions (e.g. binary vs Gaussian or MNIST vs CIFAR10) may not be the essential reason for having large robust-ness difference.
Gradual semantics-preserving transformations of data distribution can also cause large changes to datasets' achievable robustness.
Robustness performance of PGD trained models are sensitive to semantics-preserving transformation of image datasets, which implies the trickiness of evaluation of robust learning algorithms in practice.