REVIEW 2 cited by
OpenAttack: An Open-source Textual Adversarial Attack Toolkit
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Textual adversarial attacking has received wide and increasing attention in recent years. Various attack models have been proposed, which are enormously distinct and implemented with different programming frameworks and settings. These facts hinder quick utilization and fair comparison of attack models. In this paper, we present an open-source textual adversarial attack toolkit named OpenAttack to solve these issues. Compared with existing other textual adversarial attack toolkits, OpenAttack has its unique strengths in support for all attack types, multilinguality, and parallel processing. Currently, OpenAttack includes 15 typical attack models that cover all attack types. Its highly inclusive modular design not only supports quick utilization of existing attack models, but also enables great flexibility and extensibility. OpenAttack has broad uses including comparing and evaluating attack models, measuring robustness of a model, assisting in developing new attack models, and adversarial training. Source code and documentation can be obtained at https://github.com/thunlp/OpenAttack.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Towards Action Hijacking of Large Language Model-based Agent
A RAG-based LLM application can be induced to assemble harmful SQL, code, or medical action plans from knowledge already stored in its database, with the user prompt itself carrying no forbidden words.
-
Adversarial Attack Classification and Robustness Testing for Large Language Models for Code
Word-level adversarial changes in prompts, code, and comments degrade code-generation correctness more than sentence-level rewrites, but classification errors and missing error bars weaken the claim.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.