Cited by 119Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic ModelingSecurity and Verification in Computing

Hidden Backdoors in Human-Centric Language Models

Open access
Li, Shaofeng, Liu, Hui, Dong, Tian, Zhao, Benjamin Zi Hao, Xue, Minhui, Zhu, Haojin, Lu, Jialiang·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3460120.3484576

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 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
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