Hidden Backdoors in Human-Centric Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Natural language processing (NLP) systems have been proven to be vulnerable to backdoor attacks, whereby hidden features (backdoors) are trained into a language model and may only be activated by specific inputs (called triggers), to trick the model into producing unexpected behaviors. In this paper, we create covert and natural triggers for textual backdoor attacks, hidden backdoors, where triggers can fool both modern language models and human inspection. We deploy our hidden backdoors through two state-of-the-art trigger embedding methods. The first approach via homograph replacement, embeds the trigger into deep neural networks through the visual spoofing of lookalike characters replacement. The second approach uses subtle differences between text generated by language models and real natural text to produce trigger sentences with correct grammar and high fluency. We demonstrate that the proposed hidden backdoors can be effective across three downstream security-critical NLP tasks, representative of modern human-centric NLP systems, including toxic comment detection, neural machine translation (NMT), and question answering (QA). Our two hidden backdoor attacks can achieve an Attack Success Rate (ASR) of at least 97% with an injection rate of only 3% in toxic comment detection, 95.1% ASR in NMT with less than 0.5% injected data, and finally 91.12% ASR against QA updated with only 27 poisoning data samples on a model previously trained with 92,024 samples (0.029%). We are able to demonstrate the adversary's high success rate of attacks, while maintaining functionality for regular users, with triggers inconspicuous by the human administrators.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The extensive data utilized by LLMs may encompass human biases and erroneous content.
“Secondly, the extensive data utilized by LLMs may encompass human biases and erroneous content [158].”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [158]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 119
- Authors
- Li, S., Liu, H., Dong, T., Zhao, B. Z. H., Xue, M., Zhu, H., & Lu, J.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-11-12
- Pages
- 3123-3140
- ISSN
- 1543-7221 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3212213895
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 10.28
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61972453?62132013)
- Australian Research Council (DP210102670)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
- Keywords
- backdoor attacks, language models, data poisoning, toxic comment detection, neural machine translation, question answering, adversarial robustness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review