Multi-Granularity Tibetan Textual Adversarial Attack Method Based on Masked Language Model
This addresses the challenge of evaluating and improving robustness in Tibetan language models, an incremental contribution to a domain-specific problem.
The paper tackles the lack of textual adversarial attack methods for Chinese minority languages by proposing TSTricker, a multi-granularity Tibetan attack method based on masked language models, which reduces classification model accuracy by over 28.70% and changes predictions for more than 90.60% of samples.
In social media, neural network models have been applied to hate speech detection, sentiment analysis, etc., but neural network models are susceptible to adversarial attacks. For instance, in a text classification task, the attacker elaborately introduces perturbations to the original texts that hardly alter the original semantics in order to trick the model into making different predictions. By studying textual adversarial attack methods, the robustness of language models can be evaluated and then improved. Currently, most of the research in this field focuses on English, and there is also a certain amount of research on Chinese. However, there is little research targeting Chinese minority languages. With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology and the emergence of Chinese minority language models, textual adversarial attacks become a new challenge for the information processing of Chinese minority languages. In response to this situation, we propose a multi-granularity Tibetan textual adversarial attack method based on masked language models called TSTricker. We utilize the masked language models to generate candidate substitution syllables or words, adopt the scoring mechanism to determine the substitution order, and then conduct the attack method on several fine-tuned victim models. The experimental results show that TSTricker reduces the accuracy of the classification models by more than 28.70% and makes the classification models change the predictions of more than 90.60% of the samples, which has an evidently higher attack effect than the baseline method.