Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLP

Wallace, Eric, Feng, Shi, Kandpal, Nikhil, Gardner, Matt, Singh, Sameer·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Adversarial examples highlight model vulnerabilities and are useful for evaluation and interpretation. We define universal adversarial triggers: input-agnostic sequences of tokens that trigger a model to produce a specific prediction when concatenated to any input from a dataset. We propose a gradient-guided search over tokens which finds short trigger sequences (e.g., one word for classification and four words for language modeling) that successfully trigger the target prediction. For example, triggers cause SNLI entailment accuracy to drop from 89.94% to 0.55%, 72% of "why" questions in SQuAD to be answered "to kill american people", and the GPT-2 language model to spew racist output even when conditioned on non-racial contexts. Furthermore, although the triggers are optimized using white-box access to a specific model, they transfer to other models for all tasks we consider. Finally, since triggers are input-agnostic, they provide an analysis of global model behavior. For instance, they confirm that SNLI models exploit dataset biases and help to diagnose heuristics learned by reading comprehension models.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1908.07125

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 At each step, we concatenate the current trigger to a batch of examples (e.g., positive movie reviews). We then compute the gradient for the target adversarial label over the batch (e.g., using p(neg), the probability of the negative class) and update the trigger using Equation 2. After iteratively repeating this process, the trigger converges to 'zoning tapping fienes', which causes frequent negative predictions.
Figure 1 At each step, we concatenate the current trigger to a batch of examples (e.g., positive movie reviews). We then compute the gradient for the target adversarial label over the batch (e.g., using p(neg), the probability of the negative class) and update the trigger using Equation 2. After iteratively repeating this process, the trigger converges to 'zoning tapping fienes', which causes frequent negative predictions.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Melika Behjati, Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah, and Pascal Frossard. 2019. Universal adversarial attacks on text classi- fiers. In ICASSP.
  2. Yonatan Belinkov and Yonatan Bisk. 2018. Synthetic and natural noise both break neural machine transla- tion. In ICLR.
  3. Battista Biggio, Igino Corona, Davide Maiorca, Blaine Nelson, Nedim Šrndić, Pavel Laskov, Giorgio Giac- into, and Fabio Roli. 2013. Evasion attacks against machine learning at test time. In ECML-PKDD.
  4. Samuel R Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP.
  5. Tom B Brown, Dandelion Mané, Aurko Roy, Martín Abadi, and Justin Gilmer. 2017. Adversarial patch. NIPS Machine Learning and Computer Security Workshop.
  6. Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhenhua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2017. Enhanced LSTM for natural language inference. In ACL.
  7. Minhao Cheng, Jinfeng Yi, Huan Zhang, Pin-Yu Chen, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2018. Seq2sick: Evaluat- ing the robustness of sequence-to-sequence mod- els with adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01128. · arXiv
  8. Javid Ebrahimi, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018a. On adversarial examples for character-level neural machine translation. In COLING.
  9. Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018b. HotFlip: White-box adversarial exam- ples for text classification. In ACL.
  10. Shi Feng, Eric Wallace, Alvin Grissom II, Mohit Iyyer, Pedro Rodriguez, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2018. Pathologies of neural models make interpretations difficult. In EMNLP.
  11. Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel R. Bowman, and Noah A. Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural lan- guage inference data. In NAACL.
  12. Tianxing He and James Glass. 2019. Detecting egregious responses in neural sequence-to-sequence models. In ICLR.
  13. Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Adversarial example generation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In NAACL.
  14. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial exam- ples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In EMNLP.
  15. Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Un- derstanding neural networks through representation erasure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08220. · arXiv
  16. R Thomas McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In ACL.
  17. Paul Michel, Xian Li, Graham Neubig, and Juan Miguel Pino. 2019. On evaluation of ad- versarial perturbations for sequence-to-sequence models. In NAACL.
  18. Tomas Mikolov, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, Christian Puhrsch, and Armand Joulin. 2018. Ad- vances in pre-training distributed word representa- tions. In LREC.
  19. Seyed-Mohsen Moosavi-Dezfooli, Alhussein Fawzi, Omar Fawzi, and Pascal Frossard. 2017. Universal adversarial perturbations. In CVPR.
  20. Nicolas Papernot, Patrick D. McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard E. Harang. 2016. Crafting ad- versarial input sequences for recurrent neural net- works. IEEE Military Communications Conference.
  21. Ankur P Parikh, Oscar Täckström, Dipanjan Das, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2016. A decomposable attention model for natural language inference. In EMNLP.
  22. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christo- pher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In EMNLP.
  23. Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word rep- resentations. In NAACL.
  24. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In EMNLP.
  25. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Semantically equivalent adversarial rules for debugging NLP models. In ACL.
  26. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In ACL.
  27. Min Joon Seo, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Ali Farhadi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Bidirectional attention flow for machine comprehension. In ICLR.
  28. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment tree- bank. In EMNLP.
  29. Saku Sugawara, Kentaro Inui, Satoshi Sekine, and Akiko Aizawa. 2018. What makes reading compre- hension questions easier? In EMNLP.
  30. Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2014. Intriguing properties of neural networks. In ICLR.
  31. Eric Wallace, Pedro Rodriguez, Shi Feng, Ikuya Ya- mada, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2019. Trick me if you can: Human-in-the-loop generation of adversar- ial examples for question answering. In TACL.
  32. Adams Wei Yu, David Dohan, Minh-Thang Luong, Rui Zhao, Kai Chen, Mohammad Norouzi, and Quoc V. Le. 2018. QANet: Combining local convolution with global self-attention for reading comprehen- sion. In ICLR.
  33. Wei Emma Zhang, Quan Z Sheng, and Ahoud Ab- dulrahmn F Alhazmi. 2019. Adversarial attacks on deep learning models in natural language process- ing: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06796. · arXiv

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wallace, E., Feng, S., Kandpal, N., Gardner, M., & Singh, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
References
0
Type
Preprint

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.