Search

Warning: this paper contains content that maybe offensive or upsetting. Recent research in Natural Language Processing (NLP) has advanced the development of various toxicity detection models with the intention of identifying and mitigating toxic language from existing systems. Despite the abundance of research in this area, less attention has been given to adversarial attacks that force the system to generate toxic language and the defense against them. Existing work to generate such attacks is either based on human-generated attacks which is costly and not scalable or, in case of automatic attacks, the attack vector does not conform to human-like language, which can be detected using a language model loss. In this work, we propose attacks against conversational agents that are imperceptible, i.e., they fit the conversation in terms of coherency, relevancy, and fluency, while they are effective and scalable, i.e., they can automatically trigger the system into generating toxic language. We then propose a defense mechanism against such attacks which not only mitigates the attack but also attempts to maintain the conversational flow. Through automatic and human evaluations, we show that our defense is effective at avoiding toxic language generation even against imperceptible toxicity triggers while the generated language fits the conversation in terms of coherency and relevancy. Lastly, we establish the generalizability of such a defense mechanism on language generation models beyond conversational agents.

Machine learning systems have been shown to propagate the societal errors of the past. In light of this, a wealth of research focuses on designing solutions that are "fair." Even with this abundance of work, there is no singular definition of fairness, mainly because fairness is subjective and context dependent. We propose a new fairness definition, motivated by the principle of equity, that considers existing biases in the data and attempts to make equitable decisions that account for these previous historical biases. We formalize our definition of fairness, and motivate it with its appropriate contexts. Next, we operationalize it for equitable classification. We perform multiple automatic and human evaluations to show the effectiveness of our definition and demonstrate its utility for aspects of fairness, such as the feedback loop.