RAFT: Realistic Attacks to Fool Text Detectors

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03658v1
• Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 17:59:00 GMT
• Title: RAFT: Realistic Attacks to Fool Text Detectors
• Authors: James Wang, Ran Li, Junfeng Yang, Chengzhi Mao,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable fluency across various tasks. Their unethical applications, such as disseminating disinformation, have become a growing concern. We present RAFT: a grammar error-free black-box attack against existing LLM detectors.
• Score: 16.749257564123194
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable fluency across various tasks. However, their unethical applications, such as disseminating disinformation, have become a growing concern. Although recent works have proposed a number of LLM detection methods, their robustness and reliability remain unclear. In this paper, we present RAFT: a grammar error-free black-box attack against existing LLM detectors. In contrast to previous attacks for language models, our method exploits the transferability of LLM embeddings at the word-level while preserving the original text quality. We leverage an auxiliary embedding to greedily select candidate words to perturb against the target detector. Experiments reveal that our attack effectively compromises all detectors in the study across various domains by up to 99%, and are transferable across source models. Manual human evaluation studies show our attacks are realistic and indistinguishable from original human-written text. We also show that examples generated by RAFT can be used to train adversarially robust detectors. Our work shows that current LLM detectors are not adversarially robust, underscoring the urgent need for more resilient detection mechanisms.

Related papers

• DetectRL: Benchmarking LLM-Generated Text Detection in Real-World Scenarios [38.952481877244644]
  We present a new benchmark, DetectRL, highlighting that even state-of-the-art (SOTA) detection techniques still underperformed in this task. Our development of DetectRL reveals the strengths and limitations of current SOTA detectors. We believe DetectRL could serve as an effective benchmark for assessing detectors in real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T09:01:25Z)
• LLM Detectors Still Fall Short of Real World: Case of LLM-Generated Short News-Like Posts [7.680851067579922]
  This paper focuses on an important setting in information operations -- short news-like posts generated by moderately sophisticated attackers. We demonstrate that existing LLM detectors, whether zero-shot or purpose-trained, are not ready for real-world use in that setting. A purpose-trained detector generalizing across LLMs and unseen attacks can be developed, but it fails to generalize to new human-written texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T06:55:13Z)
• Human-Interpretable Adversarial Prompt Attack on Large Language Models with Situational Context [49.13497493053742]
  This research explores converting a nonsensical suffix attack into a sensible prompt via a situation-driven contextual re-writing. We combine an independent, meaningful adversarial insertion and situations derived from movies to check if this can trick an LLM. Our approach demonstrates that a successful situation-driven attack can be executed on both open-source and proprietary LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T19:47:26Z)
• Who Wrote This? The Key to Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detection Is GECScore [51.65730053591696]
  We propose a simple but effective black-box zero-shot detection approach. It is predicated on the observation that human-written texts typically contain more grammatical errors than LLM-generated texts. Our method achieves an average AUROC of 98.7% and shows strong robustness against paraphrase and adversarial perturbation attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T12:57:01Z)
• Stumbling Blocks: Stress Testing the Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detectors Under Attacks [48.32116554279759]
  We study the robustness of popular machine-generated text detectors under attacks from diverse categories: editing, paraphrasing, prompting, and co-generating. Our attacks assume limited access to the generator LLMs, and we compare the performance of detectors on different attacks under different budget levels. Averaging all detectors, the performance drops by 35% across all attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T16:36:00Z)
• OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examples [44.118047780553006]
  OUTFOX is a framework that improves the robustness of LLM-generated-text detectors by allowing both the detector and the attacker to consider each other's output. Experiments show that the proposed detector improves the detection performance on the attacker-generated texts by up to +41.3 points F1-score. The detector shows a state-of-the-art detection performance: up to 96.9 points F1-score, beating existing detectors on non-attacked texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T17:40:47Z)
• Red Teaming Language Model Detectors with Language Models [114.36392560711022]
  Large language models (LLMs) present significant safety and ethical risks if exploited by malicious users. Recent works have proposed algorithms to detect LLM-generated text and protect LLMs. We study two types of attack strategies: 1) replacing certain words in an LLM's output with their synonyms given the context; 2) automatically searching for an instructional prompt to alter the writing style of the generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T10:08:37Z)
• MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detection [54.81446366272403]
  This paper proposes the first benchmark framework for MGT detection against powerful large language models (LLMs) We show that a larger number of words in general leads to better performance and most detection methods can achieve similar performance with much fewer training samples. Our findings indicate that the model-based detection methods still perform well in the text attribution task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-26T21:12:36Z)
• Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? [54.670136179857344]
  Unregulated use of LLMs can potentially lead to malicious consequences such as plagiarism, generating fake news, spamming, etc. Recent works attempt to tackle this problem either using certain model signatures present in the generated text outputs or by applying watermarking techniques. In this paper, we show that these detectors are not reliable in practical scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:53:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.