The Conundrum of Trustworthy Research on Attacking Personally Identifiable Information Removal Techniques

Removing personally identifiable information (PII) from texts is necessary to comply with various data protection regulations and to enable data sharing without compromising privacy. However, recent works show that documents sanitized by PII removal techniques are vulnerable to reconstruction attacks. Yet, we suspect that the reported success of these attacks is largely overestimated. We critically analyze the evaluation of existing attacks and find that data leakage and data contamination are not properly mitigated, leaving the question whether or not PII removal techniques truly protect privacy in real-world scenarios unaddressed. We investigate possible data sources and attack setups that avoid data leakage and conclude that only truly private data can allow us to objectively evaluate vulnerabilities in PII removal techniques. However, access to private data is heavily restricted - and for good reasons - which also means that the public research community cannot address this problem in a transparent, reproducible, and trustworthy manner.

Private Synthetic Text Generation with Diffusion Models

How capable are diffusion models of generating synthetics texts? Recent research shows their strengths, with performance reaching that of auto-regressive LLMs. But are they also good in generating synthetic data if the training was under differential privacy? Here the evidence is missing, yet the promises from private image generation look strong. In this paper we address this open question by extensive experiments. At the same time, we critically assess (and reimplement) previous works on synthetic private text generation with LLMs and reveal some unmet assumptions that might have led to violating the differential privacy guarantees. Our results partly contradict previous non-private findings and show that fully open-source LLMs outperform diffusion models in the privacy regime. Our complete source codes, datasets, and experimental setup is publicly available to foster future research.

Cheating Automatic Short Answer Grading: On the Adversarial Usage of Adjectives and Adverbs

Automatic grading models are valued for the time and effort saved during the instruction of large student bodies. Especially with the increasing digitization of education and interest in large-scale standardized testing, the popularity of automatic grading has risen to the point where commercial solutions are widely available and used. However, for short answer formats, automatic grading is challenging due to natural language ambiguity and versatility. While automatic short answer grading models are beginning to compare to human performance on some datasets, their robustness, especially to adversarially manipulated data, is questionable. Exploitable vulnerabilities in grading models can have far-reaching consequences ranging from cheating students receiving undeserved credit to undermining automatic grading altogether - even when most predictions are valid. In this paper, we devise a black-box adversarial attack tailored to the educational short answer grading scenario to investigate the grading models' robustness. In our attack, we insert adjectives and adverbs into natural places of incorrect student answers, fooling the model into predicting them as correct. We observed a loss of prediction accuracy between 10 and 22 percentage points using the state-of-the-art models BERT and T5. While our attack made answers appear less natural to humans in our experiments, it did not significantly increase the graders' suspicions of cheating. Based on our experiments, we provide recommendations for utilizing automatic grading systems more safely in practice.