Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Text Processing Like Humans Do: Visually Attacking and Shielding NLP Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1903.11508 v2 pith:PJETBWGT submitted 2019-03-27 cs.CL cs.CRcs.CVcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.CRcs.CVcs.LG
keywords visualadversarialattackshumansshieldingmodelsscenariossystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Visual modifications to text are often used to obfuscate offensive comments in social media (e.g., "!d10t") or as a writing style ("1337" in "leet speak"), among other scenarios. We consider this as a new type of adversarial attack in NLP, a setting to which humans are very robust, as our experiments with both simple and more difficult visual input perturbations demonstrate. We then investigate the impact of visual adversarial attacks on current NLP systems on character-, word-, and sentence-level tasks, showing that both neural and non-neural models are, in contrast to humans, extremely sensitive to such attacks, suffering performance decreases of up to 82\%. We then explore three shielding methods---visual character embeddings, adversarial training, and rule-based recovery---which substantially improve the robustness of the models. However, the shielding methods still fall behind performances achieved in non-attack scenarios, which demonstrates the difficulty of dealing with visual attacks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the Validity of Traditional Vulnerability Scoring Systems for Adversarial Attacks against LLMs

    cs.CR 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Applying CVSS, DREAD, OWASP, and SSVC to 56 adversarial LLM attacks via three LLM judges yields near-constant factor scores, which the authors take as evidence that these metrics cannot differentiate LLM attacks.

  2. Tougher Text, Smarter Models: Raising the Bar for Adversarial Defence Benchmarks

    cs.CL 2025-01

Pith tools