Papers › Human-in-the-Loop Generation of Adversarial Texts: A Case Study on Tibetan Script

Human-in-the-Loop Generation of Adversarial Texts: A Case Study on Tibetan Script

17 Dec 2024arXiv:2412.12478archive 2025-07-28

Xi Cao, Yuan Sun, Jiajun Li, Quzong Gesang, Nuo Qun, Tashi Nyima

DNN-based language models perform excellently on various tasks, but even SOTA LLMs are susceptible to textual adversarial attacks. Adversarial texts play crucial roles in multiple subfields of NLP. However, current research has the following issues. (1) Most textual adversarial attack methods target rich-resourced languages. How do we generate adversarial texts for less-studied languages? (2) Most textual adversarial attack methods are prone to generating invalid or ambiguous adversarial texts. How do we construct high-quality adversarial robustness benchmarks? (3) New language models may be immune to part of previously generated adversarial texts. How do we update adversarial robustness benchmarks? To address the above issues, we introduce HITL-GAT, a system based on a general approach to human-in-the-loop generation of adversarial texts. HITL-GAT contains four stages in one pipeline: victim model construction, adversarial example generation, high-quality benchmark construction, and adversarial robustness evaluation. Additionally, we utilize HITL-GAT to make a case study on Tibetan script which can be a reference for the adversarial research of other less-studied languages.

PaperPDFCode

Code

CMLI-NLP/HITL-GAT officialpytorchGPL-3.0 report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Adversarial AttackAdversarial Robustness

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections