user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Pragmatic Evaluation of Adversarial Examples in Natural Language

Paper content:
Attacks on natural language models are difficult to compare due to their different definitions of what constitutes a successful attack.
We present a taxonomy of constraints to categorize these attacks.
For each constraint, we present a real-world use case and a way to measure how well generated samples enforce the constraint.
We then employ our framework to evaluate two state-of-the art attacks which fool models with synonym substitution.
These attacks claim their adversarial perturbations preserve the semantics and syntactical correctness of the inputs, but our analysis shows these constraints are not strongly enforced.
For a significant portion of these adversarial examples, a grammar checker detects an increase in errors.
Additionally, human studies indicate that many of these adversarial examples diverge in semantic meaning from the input or do not appear to be human-written.
Finally, we highlight the need for standardized evaluation of attacks that share constraints.
Without shared evaluation metrics, it is up to researchers to set thresholds that determine the trade-off between attack quality and attack success.
We recommend well-designed human studies to determine the best threshold to approximate human judgement.
Advances in deep learning have led to impressive performance on many tasks, but models still make mistakes.
Models are particularly vulernable to adversarial examples, inputs designed to fool models (Szegedy et al., 2014) .
Goodfellow et al. (2014) demonstrated that image classification models could be fooled by perturbations indistinguishable to humans.
Due to the importance of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, a large body of research has focused on applying the concept of adversarial examples to text, including (Alzantot et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2019; Kuleshov et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019; Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018; Samanta & Mehta, 2017; Jia & Liang, 2017; Iyyer et al., 2018; Papernot et al., 2016a) .
The importance of tasks such as spam and plagiarism detection highlights the need for robust NLP models.
However, there are fundamental differences between image and text data.
Unlike images, two different sequences of text are never entirely indistinguishable.
This raises the question: if indistinguishable perturbations aren't possible, what are adversarial examples in text?
We observe that each work from recent literature has a slightly different definition of what constitutes an adversarial example in natural language.
Comparing the success rate of two attacks is meaningless if the attacks use different methods to evaluate the same constraints or define different constraints altogether.
In this paper, we build on Gilmer et al. (2018) to introduce a taxonomy of constraints specific to adversarial examples in natural language.
To the best of our knowledge, our work provides the first comprehensive framework for categorizing and evaluating attack constraints in natural language.
We discuss use cases and propose standardized evaluation methods for each of these constraints.
We then apply our evaluation methods to the synonym-substitution based attacks of Jin et al. (2019) and Alzantot et al. (2018) .
These attacks claimed to preserve the syntax and semantics of the original sentence, while remaining non-suspicious to a human interpreter.
However, we find that most of their adversarial examples contain additional grammatical errors, and human surveys reveal that many adversarial examples also change the meaning of the sentence and/or do not appear to be written by humans.
These results call into question the ubiquity of synonym-based adversarial examples and emphasize the need for more careful evaluation of attack approaches.
Lastly, we discuss how previous works rely on arbitrary thresholds to determine the semantic similarity of two sentences.
These thresholds can be tuned by the researcher to make their methods seem more successful with little penalty in quantitative metrics.
Thus, we highlight the importance of standardized human evaluations to approximate the true threshold value.
Any method that introduces a novel approach to measure semantic similarity should support their choice of threshold with defensible human studies.
The three main contributions of this paper are:
• We formally define and categorize constraints on adversarial examples in text, and introduce evaluation methods for each category.
• Using these categorizations and evaluation methods, we quantitatively disprove claims that stateof-the-art synonym-based substitutions preserve semantics and grammatical correctness.
• We show the sensitivity of attack success rate to changes in semantic similarity thresholds set by researchers.
We assert that perturbations which claim semantic similarity should use standardized human evaluation studies with precise wording to determine an appropriate threshold.
We introduced a framework for evaluating fulfillment of attack constraints in natural language.
Applying this framework to synonym substitution attacks raised concerns about the semantic preservation, syntactic accuracy, and conspicuity of the adversarial examples they generate.
Future work may expand our hierarchy to categorize and evaluate different attack constraints in natural language.
Standardized terminology and evaluation metrics will make it easier for defenders to determine which attacks they must protect themselves from-and how.
It remains to be seen how robust BERT is when subject to synonym attacks which rigorously preserve semantics and syntax.
It is up to future research to determine how prevalent adversarial examples are throughout the broader space of paraphrases.

assistant: text: We present a framework for evaluating adversarial examples in natural language processing and demonstrate that generated adversarial examples are often not semantics-preserving, syntactically correct, or non-suspicious.