Showing 1–16 of 16 results for author: Morris, J X

Soft Prompts Go Hard: Steering Visual Language Models with Hidden Meta-Instructions

Authors: Tingwei Zhang, Collin Zhang, John X. Morris, Eugene Bagdasaryan, Vitaly Shmatikov

Abstract: We introduce a new type of indirect injection vulnerabilities in language models that operate on images: hidden "meta-instructions" that influence how the model interprets the image and steer the model's outputs to express an adversary-chosen style, sentiment, or point of view. We explain how to create meta-instructions by generating images that act as soft prompts. Unlike jailbreaking attacks a… ▽ More We introduce a new type of indirect injection vulnerabilities in language models that operate on images: hidden "meta-instructions" that influence how the model interprets the image and steer the model's outputs to express an adversary-chosen style, sentiment, or point of view. We explain how to create meta-instructions by generating images that act as soft prompts. Unlike jailbreaking attacks and adversarial examples, the outputs resulting from these images are plausible and based on the visual content of the image, yet follow the adversary's (meta-)instructions. We describe the risks of these attacks, including misinformation and spin, evaluate their efficacy for multiple visual language models and adversarial meta-objectives, and demonstrate how they can "unlock" the capabilities of the underlying language models that are unavailable via explicit text instructions. Finally, we discuss defenses against these attacks. △ Less

Submitted 11 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Corpus Poisoning via Approximate Greedy Gradient Descent

Authors: **yan Su, John X. Morris, Preslav Nakov, Claire Cardie

Abstract: Dense retrievers are widely used in information retrieval and have also been successfully extended to other knowledge intensive areas such as language models, e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. Unfortunately, they have recently been shown to be vulnerable to corpus poisoning attacks in which a malicious user injects a small fraction of adversarial passages into the retrieval corpu… ▽ More Dense retrievers are widely used in information retrieval and have also been successfully extended to other knowledge intensive areas such as language models, e.g., Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. Unfortunately, they have recently been shown to be vulnerable to corpus poisoning attacks in which a malicious user injects a small fraction of adversarial passages into the retrieval corpus to trick the system into returning these passages among the top-ranked results for a broad set of user queries. Further study is needed to understand the extent to which these attacks could limit the deployment of dense retrievers in real-world applications. In this work, we propose Approximate Greedy Gradient Descent (AGGD), a new attack on dense retrieval systems based on the widely used HotFlip method for efficiently generating adversarial passages. We demonstrate that AGGD can select a higher quality set of token-level perturbations than HotFlip by replacing its random token sampling with a more structured search. Experimentally, we show that our method achieves a high attack success rate on several datasets and using several retrievers, and can generalize to unseen queries and new domains. Notably, our method is extremely effective in attacking the ANCE retrieval model, achieving attack success rates that are 17.6\% and 13.37\% higher on the NQ and MS MARCO datasets, respectively, compared to HotFlip. Additionally, we demonstrate AGGD's potential to replace HotFlip in other adversarial attacks, such as knowledge poisoning of RAG systems.\footnote{Code can be find in \url{https://github.com/**yanSu1/AGGD}} △ Less

Submitted 7 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Crafting Interpretable Embeddings by Asking LLMs Questions

Authors: Vinamra Benara, Chandan Singh, John X. Morris, Richard Antonello, Ion Stoica, Alexander G. Huth, Jianfeng Gao

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved text embeddings for a growing array of natural-language processing tasks. However, their opaqueness and proliferation into scientific domains such as neuroscience have created a growing need for interpretability. Here, we ask whether we can obtain interpretable embeddings through LLM prompting. We introduce question-answering embeddings (QA-Emb),… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved text embeddings for a growing array of natural-language processing tasks. However, their opaqueness and proliferation into scientific domains such as neuroscience have created a growing need for interpretability. Here, we ask whether we can obtain interpretable embeddings through LLM prompting. We introduce question-answering embeddings (QA-Emb), embeddings where each feature represents an answer to a yes/no question asked to an LLM. Training QA-Emb reduces to selecting a set of underlying questions rather than learning model weights. We use QA-Emb to flexibly generate interpretable models for predicting fMRI voxel responses to language stimuli. QA-Emb significantly outperforms an established interpretable baseline, and does so while requiring very few questions. This paves the way towards building flexible feature spaces that can concretize and evaluate our understanding of semantic brain representations. We additionally find that QA-Emb can be effectively approximated with an efficient model, and we explore broader applications in simple NLP tasks. △ Less

Submitted 26 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Extracting Prompts by Inverting LLM Outputs

Authors: Collin Zhang, John X. Morris, Vitaly Shmatikov

Abstract: We consider the problem of language model inversion: given outputs of a language model, we seek to extract the prompt that generated these outputs. We develop a new black-box method, output2prompt, that learns to extract prompts without access to the model's logits and without adversarial or jailbreaking queries. In contrast to previous work, output2prompt only needs outputs of normal user queries… ▽ More We consider the problem of language model inversion: given outputs of a language model, we seek to extract the prompt that generated these outputs. We develop a new black-box method, output2prompt, that learns to extract prompts without access to the model's logits and without adversarial or jailbreaking queries. In contrast to previous work, output2prompt only needs outputs of normal user queries. To improve memory efficiency, output2prompt employs a new sparse encoding techique. We measure the efficacy of output2prompt on a variety of user and system prompts and demonstrate zero-shot transferability across different LLMs. △ Less

Submitted 23 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Do language models plan ahead for future tokens?

Authors: Wilson Wu, John X. Morris, Lionel Levine

Abstract: Do transformers "think ahead" during inference at a given position? It is known transformers prepare information in the hidden states of the forward pass at $t$ that is then used in future forward passes $t+τ$. We posit two explanations for this phenomenon: pre-caching, in which off-diagonal gradient terms present in training result in the model computing features at $t$ irrelevant to the present… ▽ More Do transformers "think ahead" during inference at a given position? It is known transformers prepare information in the hidden states of the forward pass at $t$ that is then used in future forward passes $t+τ$. We posit two explanations for this phenomenon: pre-caching, in which off-diagonal gradient terms present in training result in the model computing features at $t$ irrelevant to the present inference task but useful for the future, and breadcrumbs, in which features most relevant to time step $t$ are already the same as those that would most benefit inference at time $t+τ$. We test these hypotheses by training language models without propagating gradients to past timesteps, a scheme we formalize as myopic training. In a synthetic data setting, we find clear evidence for pre-caching. In the autoregressive language modeling setting, our experiments are more suggestive of the breadcrumbs hypothesis. △ Less

Submitted 31 March, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Nomic Embed: Training a Reproducible Long Context Text Embedder

Authors: Zach Nussbaum, John X. Morris, Brandon Duderstadt, Andriy Mulyar

Abstract: This technical report describes the training of nomic-embed-text-v1, the first fully reproducible, open-source, open-weights, open-data, 8192 context length English text embedding model that outperforms both OpenAI Ada-002 and OpenAI text-embedding-3-small on short and long-context tasks. We release the training code and model weights under an Apache 2 license. In contrast with other open-source m… ▽ More This technical report describes the training of nomic-embed-text-v1, the first fully reproducible, open-source, open-weights, open-data, 8192 context length English text embedding model that outperforms both OpenAI Ada-002 and OpenAI text-embedding-3-small on short and long-context tasks. We release the training code and model weights under an Apache 2 license. In contrast with other open-source models, we release a training data loader with 235 million curated text pairs that allows for the full replication of nomic-embed-text-v1. You can find code and data to replicate the model at https://github.com/nomic-ai/contrastors △ Less

Submitted 2 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Language Model Inversion

Authors: John X. Morris, Wenting Zhao, Justin T. Chiu, Vitaly Shmatikov, Alexander M. Rush

Abstract: Language models produce a distribution over the next token; can we use this information to recover the prompt tokens? We consider the problem of language model inversion and show that next-token probabilities contain a surprising amount of information about the preceding text. Often we can recover the text in cases where it is hidden from the user, motivating a method for recovering unknown prompt… ▽ More Language models produce a distribution over the next token; can we use this information to recover the prompt tokens? We consider the problem of language model inversion and show that next-token probabilities contain a surprising amount of information about the preceding text. Often we can recover the text in cases where it is hidden from the user, motivating a method for recovering unknown prompts given only the model's current distribution output. We consider a variety of model access scenarios, and show how even without predictions for every token in the vocabulary we can recover the probability vector through search. On Llama-2 7b, our inversion method reconstructs prompts with a BLEU of $59$ and token-level F1 of $78$ and recovers $27\%$ of prompts exactly. Code for reproducing all experiments is available at http://github.com/jxmorris12/vec2text. △ Less

Submitted 22 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Tree Prompting: Efficient Task Adaptation without Fine-Tuning

Authors: John X. Morris, Chandan Singh, Alexander M. Rush, Jianfeng Gao, Yuntian Deng

Abstract: Prompting language models (LMs) is the main interface for applying them to new tasks. However, for smaller LMs, prompting provides low accuracy compared to gradient-based finetuning. Tree Prompting is an approach to prompting which builds a decision tree of prompts, linking multiple LM calls together to solve a task. At inference time, each call to the LM is determined by efficiently routing the o… ▽ More Prompting language models (LMs) is the main interface for applying them to new tasks. However, for smaller LMs, prompting provides low accuracy compared to gradient-based finetuning. Tree Prompting is an approach to prompting which builds a decision tree of prompts, linking multiple LM calls together to solve a task. At inference time, each call to the LM is determined by efficiently routing the outcome of the previous call using the tree. Experiments on classification datasets show that Tree Prompting improves accuracy over competing methods and is competitive with fine-tuning. We also show that variants of Tree Prompting allow inspection of a model's decision-making process. △ Less

Submitted 21 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: Both first authors contributed equally; accepted to EMNLP 2023

Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Text

Authors: John X. Morris, Volodymyr Kuleshov, Vitaly Shmatikov, Alexander M. Rush

Abstract: How much private information do text embeddings reveal about the original text? We investigate the problem of embedding \textit{inversion}, reconstructing the full text represented in dense text embeddings. We frame the problem as controlled generation: generating text that, when reembedded, is close to a fixed point in latent space. We find that although a naïve model conditioned on the embedding… ▽ More How much private information do text embeddings reveal about the original text? We investigate the problem of embedding \textit{inversion}, reconstructing the full text represented in dense text embeddings. We frame the problem as controlled generation: generating text that, when reembedded, is close to a fixed point in latent space. We find that although a naïve model conditioned on the embedding performs poorly, a multi-step method that iteratively corrects and re-embeds text is able to recover $92\%$ of $32\text{-token}$ text inputs exactly. We train our model to decode text embeddings from two state-of-the-art embedding models, and also show that our model can recover important personal information (full names) from a dataset of clinical notes. Our code is available on Github: \href{https://github.com/jxmorris12/vec2text}{github.com/jxmorris12/vec2text}. △ Less

Submitted 10 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: Accepted at EMNLP 2023

Unsupervised Text Deidentification

Authors: John X. Morris, Justin T. Chiu, Ramin Zabih, Alexander M. Rush

Abstract: Deidentification seeks to anonymize textual data prior to distribution. Automatic deidentification primarily uses supervised named entity recognition from human-labeled data points. We propose an unsupervised deidentification method that masks words that leak personally-identifying information. The approach utilizes a specially trained reidentification model to identify individuals from redacted p… ▽ More Deidentification seeks to anonymize textual data prior to distribution. Automatic deidentification primarily uses supervised named entity recognition from human-labeled data points. We propose an unsupervised deidentification method that masks words that leak personally-identifying information. The approach utilizes a specially trained reidentification model to identify individuals from redacted personal documents. Motivated by K-anonymity based privacy, we generate redactions that ensure a minimum reidentification rank for the correct profile of the document. To evaluate this approach, we consider the task of deidentifying Wikipedia Biographies, and evaluate using an adversarial reidentification metric. Compared to a set of unsupervised baselines, our approach deidentifies documents more completely while removing fewer words. Qualitatively, we see that the approach eliminates many identifying aspects that would fall outside of the common named entity based approach. △ Less

Submitted 20 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: Findings of EMNLP 2022

Explaining Patterns in Data with Language Models via Interpretable Autoprompting

Authors: Chandan Singh, John X. Morris, Jyoti Aneja, Alexander M. Rush, Jianfeng Gao

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have displayed an impressive ability to harness natural language to perform complex tasks. In this work, we explore whether we can leverage this learned ability to find and explain patterns in data. Specifically, given a pre-trained LLM and data examples, we introduce interpretable autoprompting (iPrompt), an algorithm that generates a natural-language string explainin… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) have displayed an impressive ability to harness natural language to perform complex tasks. In this work, we explore whether we can leverage this learned ability to find and explain patterns in data. Specifically, given a pre-trained LLM and data examples, we introduce interpretable autoprompting (iPrompt), an algorithm that generates a natural-language string explaining the data. iPrompt iteratively alternates between generating explanations with an LLM and reranking them based on their performance when used as a prompt. Experiments on a wide range of datasets, from synthetic mathematics to natural-language understanding, show that iPrompt can yield meaningful insights by accurately finding groundtruth dataset descriptions. Moreover, the prompts produced by iPrompt are simultaneously human-interpretable and highly effective for generalization: on real-world sentiment classification datasets, iPrompt produces prompts that match or even improve upon human-written prompts for GPT-3. Finally, experiments with an fMRI dataset show the potential for iPrompt to aid in scientific discovery. All code for using the methods and data here is made available on Github. △ Less

Submitted 26 January, 2023; v1 submitted 4 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: The two first authors contributed equally

Second-Order NLP Adversarial Examples

Authors: John X. Morris

Abstract: Adversarial example generation methods in NLP rely on models like language models or sentence encoders to determine if potential adversarial examples are valid. In these methods, a valid adversarial example fools the model being attacked, and is determined to be semantically or syntactically valid by a second model. Research to date has counted all such examples as errors by the attacked model. We… ▽ More Adversarial example generation methods in NLP rely on models like language models or sentence encoders to determine if potential adversarial examples are valid. In these methods, a valid adversarial example fools the model being attacked, and is determined to be semantically or syntactically valid by a second model. Research to date has counted all such examples as errors by the attacked model. We contend that these adversarial examples may not be flaws in the attacked model, but flaws in the model that determines validity. We term such invalid inputs second-order adversarial examples. We propose the constraint robustness curve and associated metric ACCS as tools for evaluating the robustness of a constraint to second-order adversarial examples. To generate this curve, we design an adversarial attack to run directly on the semantic similarity models. We test on two constraints, the Universal Sentence Encoder (USE) and BERTScore. Our findings indicate that such second-order examples exist, but are typically less common than first-order adversarial examples in state-of-the-art models. They also indicate that USE is effective as constraint on NLP adversarial examples, while BERTScore is nearly ineffectual. Code for running the experiments in this paper is available at https://github.com/jxmorris12/second-order-adversarial-examples. △ Less

Submitted 5 October, 2020; v1 submitted 5 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: 8 pages

TextAttack: Lessons learned in designing Python frameworks for NLP

Authors: John X. Morris, ** Yong Yoo, Yanjun Qi

Abstract: TextAttack is an open-source Python toolkit for adversarial attacks, adversarial training, and data augmentation in NLP. TextAttack unites 15+ papers from the NLP adversarial attack literature into a single framework, with many components reused across attacks. This framework allows both researchers and developers to test and study the weaknesses of their NLP models. To build such an open-source N… ▽ More TextAttack is an open-source Python toolkit for adversarial attacks, adversarial training, and data augmentation in NLP. TextAttack unites 15+ papers from the NLP adversarial attack literature into a single framework, with many components reused across attacks. This framework allows both researchers and developers to test and study the weaknesses of their NLP models. To build such an open-source NLP toolkit requires solving some common problems: How do we enable users to supply models from different deep learning frameworks? How can we build tools to support as many different datasets as possible? We share our insights into develo** a well-written, well-documented NLP Python framework in hope that they can aid future development of similar packages. △ Less

Submitted 4 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: 4 pages

Searching for a Search Method: Benchmarking Search Algorithms for Generating NLP Adversarial Examples

Authors: ** Yong Yoo, John X. Morris, Eli Lifland, Yanjun Qi

Abstract: We study the behavior of several black-box search algorithms used for generating adversarial examples for natural language processing (NLP) tasks. We perform a fine-grained analysis of three elements relevant to search: search algorithm, search space, and search budget. When new search algorithms are proposed in past work, the attack search space is often modified alongside the search algorithm. W… ▽ More We study the behavior of several black-box search algorithms used for generating adversarial examples for natural language processing (NLP) tasks. We perform a fine-grained analysis of three elements relevant to search: search algorithm, search space, and search budget. When new search algorithms are proposed in past work, the attack search space is often modified alongside the search algorithm. Without ablation studies benchmarking the search algorithm change with the search space held constant, one cannot tell if an increase in attack success rate is a result of an improved search algorithm or a less restrictive search space. Additionally, many previous studies fail to properly consider the search algorithms' run-time cost, which is essential for downstream tasks like adversarial training. Our experiments provide a reproducible benchmark of search algorithms across a variety of search spaces and query budgets to guide future research in adversarial NLP. Based on our experiments, we recommend greedy attacks with word importance ranking when under a time constraint or attacking long inputs, and either beam search or particle swarm optimization otherwise. Code implementation shared via https://github.com/QData/TextAttack-Search-Benchmark △ Less

Submitted 12 October, 2020; v1 submitted 9 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Comments: 14 pages, 5 figures, 4 tables; Accepted by EMNLP BlackBox NLP Workshop 2020 @ https://blackboxnlp.github.io/cfp.html

TextAttack: A Framework for Adversarial Attacks, Data Augmentation, and Adversarial Training in NLP

Authors: John X. Morris, Eli Lifland, ** Yong Yoo, Jake Grigsby, Di **, Yanjun Qi

Abstract: While there has been substantial research using adversarial attacks to analyze NLP models, each attack is implemented in its own code repository. It remains challenging to develop NLP attacks and utilize them to improve model performance. This paper introduces TextAttack, a Python framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in NLP. TextAttack builds attacks from… ▽ More While there has been substantial research using adversarial attacks to analyze NLP models, each attack is implemented in its own code repository. It remains challenging to develop NLP attacks and utilize them to improve model performance. This paper introduces TextAttack, a Python framework for adversarial attacks, data augmentation, and adversarial training in NLP. TextAttack builds attacks from four components: a goal function, a set of constraints, a transformation, and a search method. TextAttack's modular design enables researchers to easily construct attacks from combinations of novel and existing components. TextAttack provides implementations of 16 adversarial attacks from the literature and supports a variety of models and datasets, including BERT and other transformers, and all GLUE tasks. TextAttack also includes data augmentation and adversarial training modules for using components of adversarial attacks to improve model accuracy and robustness. TextAttack is democratizing NLP: anyone can try data augmentation and adversarial training on any model or dataset, with just a few lines of code. Code and tutorials are available at https://github.com/QData/TextAttack. △ Less

Submitted 4 October, 2020; v1 submitted 29 April, 2020; originally announced May 2020.

Comments: 6 pages. More details are shared at https://github.com/QData/TextAttack

Reevaluating Adversarial Examples in Natural Language

Authors: John X. Morris, Eli Lifland, Jack Lanchantin, Yangfeng Ji, Yanjun Qi

Abstract: State-of-the-art attacks on NLP models lack a shared definition of a what constitutes a successful attack. We distill ideas from past work into a unified framework: a successful natural language adversarial example is a perturbation that fools the model and follows some linguistic constraints. We then analyze the outputs of two state-of-the-art synonym substitution attacks. We find that their pert… ▽ More State-of-the-art attacks on NLP models lack a shared definition of a what constitutes a successful attack. We distill ideas from past work into a unified framework: a successful natural language adversarial example is a perturbation that fools the model and follows some linguistic constraints. We then analyze the outputs of two state-of-the-art synonym substitution attacks. We find that their perturbations often do not preserve semantics, and 38% introduce grammatical errors. Human surveys reveal that to successfully preserve semantics, we need to significantly increase the minimum cosine similarities between the embeddings of swapped words and between the sentence encodings of original and perturbed sentences.With constraints adjusted to better preserve semantics and grammaticality, the attack success rate drops by over 70 percentage points. △ Less

Submitted 21 December, 2021; v1 submitted 24 April, 2020; originally announced April 2020.

Comments: 15 pages; 9 Tables; 5 Figures

Journal ref: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020