REVIEW 1 cited by
A Survey of Adversarial Defences and Robustness in NLP
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
A Survey of Adversarial Defences and Robustness in NLP
read the original abstract
In the past few years, it has become increasingly evident that deep neural networks are not resilient enough to withstand adversarial perturbations in input data, leaving them vulnerable to attack. Various authors have proposed strong adversarial attacks for computer vision and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. As a response, many defense mechanisms have also been proposed to prevent these networks from failing. The significance of defending neural networks against adversarial attacks lies in ensuring that the model's predictions remain unchanged even if the input data is perturbed. Several methods for adversarial defense in NLP have been proposed, catering to different NLP tasks such as text classification, named entity recognition, and natural language inference. Some of these methods not only defend neural networks against adversarial attacks but also act as a regularization mechanism during training, saving the model from overfitting. This survey aims to review the various methods proposed for adversarial defenses in NLP over the past few years by introducing a novel taxonomy. The survey also highlights the fragility of advanced deep neural networks in NLP and the challenges involved in defending them.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness in Arabic Language Models
Arabic BERT-family sentiment models lose up to 92% accuracy under diacritics and 58% under conjunction attacks; paraphrase attacks cut accuracy by 76% on average, and adversarial training only partially helps.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.