Suspiciousness of Adversarial Texts to Human

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04377v1
• Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 06:57:22 GMT
• Title: Suspiciousness of Adversarial Texts to Human
• Authors: Shakila Mahjabin Tonni, Pedro Faustini, Mark Dras,
• Abstract summary: This study delves into the concept of human suspiciousness, a quality distinct from the traditional focus on imperceptibility found in image-based adversarial examples. We gather and publish a novel dataset of Likert-scale human evaluations on the suspiciousness of adversarial sentences. We develop a regression-based model to quantify suspiciousness and establish a baseline for future research in reducing the suspiciousness in adversarial text generation.
• Score: 3.312665722657581
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Adversarial examples pose a significant challenge to deep neural networks (DNNs) across both image and text domains, with the intent to degrade model performance through meticulously altered inputs. Adversarial texts, however, are distinct from adversarial images due to their requirement for semantic similarity and the discrete nature of the textual contents. This study delves into the concept of human suspiciousness, a quality distinct from the traditional focus on imperceptibility found in image-based adversarial examples. Unlike images, where adversarial changes are meant to be indistinguishable to the human eye, textual adversarial content must often remain undetected or non-suspicious to human readers, even when the text's purpose is to deceive NLP systems or bypass filters. In this research, we expand the study of human suspiciousness by analyzing how individuals perceive adversarial texts. We gather and publish a novel dataset of Likert-scale human evaluations on the suspiciousness of adversarial sentences, crafted by four widely used adversarial attack methods and assess their correlation with the human ability to detect machine-generated alterations. Additionally, we develop a regression-based model to quantify suspiciousness and establish a baseline for future research in reducing the suspiciousness in adversarial text generation. We also demonstrate how the regressor-generated suspicious scores can be incorporated into adversarial generation methods to produce texts that are less likely to be perceived as computer-generated. We make our human suspiciousness annotated data and our code available.

Related papers

• Safeguard Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Human Feedback Inversion [51.931083971448885]
  We propose a framework named Human Feedback Inversion (HFI), where human feedback on model-generated images is condensed into textual tokens guiding the mitigation or removal of problematic images. Our experimental results demonstrate our framework significantly reduces objectionable content generation while preserving image quality, contributing to the ethical deployment of AI in the public sphere.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T05:21:41Z)
• Humanizing Machine-Generated Content: Evading AI-Text Detection through Adversarial Attack [24.954755569786396]
  We propose a framework for a broader class of adversarial attacks, designed to perform minor perturbations in machine-generated content to evade detection. We consider two attack settings: white-box and black-box, and employ adversarial learning in dynamic scenarios to assess the potential enhancement of the current detection model's robustness. The empirical results reveal that the current detection models can be compromised in as little as 10 seconds, leading to the misclassification of machine-generated text as human-written content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T12:49:22Z)
• Few-Shot Adversarial Prompt Learning on Vision-Language Models [62.50622628004134]
  The vulnerability of deep neural networks to imperceptible adversarial perturbations has attracted widespread attention. Previous efforts achieved zero-shot adversarial robustness by aligning adversarial visual features with text supervision. We propose a few-shot adversarial prompt framework where adapting input sequences with limited data makes significant adversarial robustness improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T18:28:43Z)
• DEMASQ: Unmasking the ChatGPT Wordsmith [63.8746084667206]
  We propose an effective ChatGPT detector named DEMASQ, which accurately identifies ChatGPT-generated content. Our method addresses two critical factors: (i) the distinct biases in text composition observed in human- and machine-generated content and (ii) the alterations made by humans to evade previous detection methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T21:13:05Z)
• Towards Possibilities & Impossibilities of AI-generated Text Detection: A Survey [97.33926242130732]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the domain of natural language processing (NLP) with remarkable capabilities of generating human-like text responses. Despite these advancements, several works in the existing literature have raised serious concerns about the potential misuse of LLMs. To address these concerns, a consensus among the research community is to develop algorithmic solutions to detect AI-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T18:11:32Z)
• How do humans perceive adversarial text? A reality check on the validity and naturalness of word-based adversarial attacks [4.297786261992324]
  adversarial attacks are malicious algorithms that imperceptibly modify input text to force models into making incorrect predictions. We surveyed 378 human participants about the perceptibility of text adversarial examples produced by state-of-the-art methods. Our results underline that existing text attacks are impractical in real-world scenarios where humans are involved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T21:52:13Z)
• Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text [23.622347443796183]
  We study a more realistic setting where text begins as human-written and transitions to being generated by state-of-the-art neural language models. We show that, while annotators often struggle at this task, there is substantial variance in annotator skill and that given proper incentives, annotators can improve at this task over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-24T06:40:25Z)
• Searching for the Essence of Adversarial Perturbations [73.96215665913797]
  We show that adversarial perturbations contain human-recognizable information, which is the key conspirator responsible for a neural network's erroneous prediction. This concept of human-recognizable information allows us to explain key features related to adversarial perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-30T18:04:57Z)
• Adversarial Robustness of Neural-Statistical Features in Detection of Generative Transformers [6.209131728799896]
  We evaluate neural and non-neural approaches on their ability to detect computer-generated text. We find that while statistical features underperform neural features, statistical features provide additional adversarial robustness. We pioneer the usage of $Delta$MAUVE as a proxy measure for human judgement of adversarial text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T16:46:39Z)
• Contrasting Human- and Machine-Generated Word-Level Adversarial Examples for Text Classification [12.750016480098262]
  We report on crowdsourcing studies in which we task humans with iteratively modifying words in an input text. We analyze how human-generated adversarial examples compare to the recently proposed TextFooler, Genetic, BAE and SememePSO attack algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T16:16:04Z)
• Attack to Fool and Explain Deep Networks [59.97135687719244]
  We counter-argue by providing evidence of human-meaningful patterns in adversarial perturbations. Our major contribution is a novel pragmatic adversarial attack that is subsequently transformed into a tool to interpret the visual models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-20T03:07:36Z)

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.