Cited by 79Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Imitation Attacks and Defenses for Black-box Machine Translation Systems

Open access
Wallace, Eric, Stern, Mitchell, Song, Dawn·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

Abstract

Adversaries may look to steal or attack blackbox NLP systems, either for financial gain or to exploit model errors.One setting of particular interest is machine translation (MT), where models have high commercial value and errors can be costly.We investigate possible exploitations of black-box MT systems and explore a preliminary defense against such threats.We first show that MT systems can be stolen by querying them with monolingual sentences and training models to imitate their outputs.Using simulated experiments, we demonstrate that MT model stealing is possible even when imitation models have different input data or architectures than their target models.Applying these ideas, we train imitation models that reach within 0.6 BLEU of three production MT systems on both high-resource and low-resource language pairs.We then leverage the similarity of our imitation models to transfer adversarial examples to the production systems.We use gradient-based attacks that expose inputs which lead to semanticallyincorrect translations, dropped content, and vulgar model outputs.To mitigate these vulnerabilities, we propose a defense that modifies translation outputs in order to misdirect the optimization of imitation models.This defense degrades the adversary's BLEU score and attack success rate at some cost in the defender's BLEU and inference speed.Transfer Solve Eq. (2) Save me it's over 100°F Phase One: Model Imitation German

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.446

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Extracting reasoning yields a substantially more effective form of capability stealing than output-only distillation because a reasoning trace reveals the intermediate solution trajectory and supplies a far denser supervision signal.

    “Extracting reasoning matters not because output-only distillation is ineffective, but because reasoning yields a substantially more effective form of capability stealing.”

    From Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs (2026) · cites this paper as Wallace et al., 2020

    The 'Past Work on Distillation and Stealing' section describes training an imitation model on a victim's translations, and 'Data Efficiency' reports that such output-based stealing can succeed. That supports the sentence's premise that output-only imitation is not ineffective. The paper does not examine reasoning traces or compare reasoning extraction with output-only imitation, so it does not support the claimed advantage. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Varun Chandrasekaran, K Chaudhari, Irene Giacomelli, Somesh Jha, and Songbai Yan. 2020. Exploring con- nections between active learning and model extrac- tion. In USENIX Security Symposium.
  2. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hi- erarchical neural story generation. In ACL.
  3. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data. In ACL.
  4. Florian Tramèr, Fan Zhang, Ari Juels, Michael K Re- iter, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2016. Stealing ma- chine learning models via prediction APIs. In USENIX Security Symposium.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wallace, E., Stern, M., & Song, D.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)
Published
2020
Pages
5531-5546
OpenAlex
W3099729825
Cited by
75
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7
FWCI
5.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
model theft, imitation learning, adversarial attacks, gradient-based attacks, adversarial examples, attack defense, low-resource language pairs

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