RedHerring Attack: Testing the Reliability of Attack Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In response to adversarial text attacks, attack detection models have been proposed and shown to successfully identify text modified by adversaries. Attack detection models can be leveraged to provide an additional check for NLP models and give signals for human input. However, the reliability of these models has not yet been thoroughly explored. Thus, we propose and test a novel attack setting and attack, RedHerring. RedHerring aims to make attack detection models unreliable by modifying a text to cause the detection model to predict an attack, while keeping the classifier correct. This creates a tension between the classifier and detector. If a human sees that the detector is giving an ``incorrect'' prediction, but the classifier a correct one, then the human will see the detector as unreliable. We test this novel threat model on 4 datasets against 3 detectors defending 4 classifiers. We find that RedHerring is able to drop detection accuracy between 20 - 71 points, while maintaining (or improving) classifier accuracy. As an initial defense, we propose a simple confidence check which requires no retraining of the classifier or detector and increases detection accuracy greatly. This novel threat model offers new insights into how adversaries may target detection models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2025.
Builds on
26 of 45 references.
References · 26
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,307
- 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,790
- 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 671
- 2020BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERTcited by 491
- 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 424
- 2018TextBugger: Generating Adversarial Text Against Real-world Applicationscited by 381
- 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 345
- 2020BAE: BERT-based Adversarial Examples for Text Classificationcited by 316
14 more
- 2018Adversarial Example Generation with Syntactically Controlled Paraphrase Networkscited by 286
- 2019FreeLB: Enhanced Adversarial Training for Natural Language Understandingcited by 264
- 2021Mind the Style of Text! Adversarial and Backdoor Attacks Based on Text Style Transfercited by 158
- 2020Contextualized Perturbation for Textual Adversarial Attackcited by 136
- 2019Text Processing Like Humans Do: Visually Attacking and Shielding NLP Systemscited by 101
- 2021Certified Robustness to Text Adversarial Attacks by Randomized [MASK]cited by 57
- 2021Searching for an Effective Defender: Benchmarking Defense against Adversarial Word Substitutioncited by 56
- 2020Frequency-Guided Word Substitutions for Detecting Textual Adversarial Examplescited by 54
- 2022SemAttack: Natural Textual Attacks via Different Semantic Spacescited by 42
- 2022"That Is a Suspicious Reaction!": Interpreting Logits Variation to Detect NLP Adversarial Attackscited by 24
- 2022Phrase-level Textual Adversarial Attack with Label Preservationcited by 23
- 2022Block-Sparse Adversarial Attack to Fool Transformer-Based Text Classifierscited by 9
- 2022Don't sweat the small stuff, classify the rest: Sample Shielding to protect text classifiers against adversarial attackscited by 3
- 2023On the Universal Adversarial Perturbations for Efficient Data-free Adversarial Detectioncited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.