TaeBench: Improving Quality of Toxic Adversarial Examples

Toxicity text detectors can be vulnerable to adversarial examples - small perturbations to input text that fool the systems into wrong detection. Existing attack algorithms are time-consuming and often produce invalid or ambiguous adversarial examples, making them less useful for evaluating or improving real-world toxicity content moderators. This paper proposes an annotation pipeline for quality control of generated toxic adversarial examples (TAE). We design model-based automated annotation and human-based quality verification to assess the quality requirements of TAE. Successful TAE should fool a target toxicity model into making benign predictions, be grammatically reasonable, appear natural like human-generated text, and exhibit semantic toxicity. When applying these requirements to more than 20 state-of-the-art (SOTA) TAE attack recipes, we find many invalid samples from a total of 940k raw TAE attack generations. We then utilize the proposed pipeline to filter and curate a high-quality TAE dataset we call TaeBench (of size 264k). Empirically, we demonstrate that TaeBench can effectively transfer-attack SOTA toxicity content moderation models and services. Our experiments also show that TaeBench with adversarial training achieve significant improvements of the robustness of two toxicity detectors.

Towards Building a Robust Toxicity Predictor

Recent NLP literature pays little attention to the robustness of toxicity language predictors, while these systems are most likely to be used in adversarial contexts. This paper presents a novel adversarial attack, \texttt{ToxicTrap}, introducing small word-level perturbations to fool SOTA text classifiers to predict toxic text samples as benign. ToxicTrap exploits greedy based search strategies to enable fast and effective generation of toxic adversarial examples. Two novel goal function designs allow ToxicTrap to identify weaknesses in both multiclass and multilabel toxic language detectors. Our empirical results show that SOTA toxicity text classifiers are indeed vulnerable to the proposed attacks, attaining over 98\% attack success rates in multilabel cases. We also show how a vanilla adversarial training and its improved version can help increase robustness of a toxicity detector even against unseen attacks.

Latent Skill Discovery for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to an emergent ability of chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, a prompt reasoning strategy that adds intermediate rationale steps between questions and answers to construct prompts. Conditioned on these prompts, LLMs can effectively learn in context to generate rationales that lead to more accurate answers than when answering the same question directly. To design LLM prompts, one important setting, called demonstration selection, considers selecting demonstrations from an example bank. Existing methods use various heuristics for this selection, but for CoT prompting, which involves unique rationales, it is essential to base the selection upon the intrinsic skills that CoT rationales need, for instance, the skills of addition or subtraction for math word problems. To address this requirement, we introduce a novel approach named Reasoning Skill Discovery (RSD) that use unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales, called a reasoning skill. Simultaneously, RSD learns a reasoning policy to determine the required reasoning skill for a given question. This can then guide the selection of examples that demonstrate the required reasoning skills. Our approach offers several desirable properties: it is (1) theoretically grounded, (2) sample-efficient, requiring no LLM inference or manual prompt design, and (3) LLM-agnostic. Empirically, RSD outperforms existing methods by up to 6% in terms of the answer accuracy across multiple reasoning tasks.