REVIEW 2 cited by
Text Processing Like Humans Do: Visually Attacking and Shielding NLP Systems
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Visual modifications to text are often used to obfuscate offensive comments in social media (e.g., "!d10t") or as a writing style ("1337" in "leet speak"), among other scenarios. We consider this as a new type of adversarial attack in NLP, a setting to which humans are very robust, as our experiments with both simple and more difficult visual input perturbations demonstrate. We then investigate the impact of visual adversarial attacks on current NLP systems on character-, word-, and sentence-level tasks, showing that both neural and non-neural models are, in contrast to humans, extremely sensitive to such attacks, suffering performance decreases of up to 82\%. We then explore three shielding methods---visual character embeddings, adversarial training, and rule-based recovery---which substantially improve the robustness of the models. However, the shielding methods still fall behind performances achieved in non-attack scenarios, which demonstrates the difficulty of dealing with visual attacks.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
On the Validity of Traditional Vulnerability Scoring Systems for Adversarial Attacks against LLMs
Applying CVSS, DREAD, OWASP, and SSVC to 56 adversarial LLM attacks via three LLM judges yields near-constant factor scores, which the authors take as evidence that these metrics cannot differentiate LLM attacks.
- Tougher Text, Smarter Models: Raising the Bar for Adversarial Defence Benchmarks
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.