mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Smaller Language Models are Better Black-box Machine-Generated Text Detectors

arXiv 2305.09859 ↗First posted 17 May 2023cs.CL cs.LGcited by 35

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

With the advent of fluent generative language models that can produce convincing utterances very similar to those written by humans, distinguishing whether a piece of text is machine-generated or human-written becomes more challenging and more important, as such models could be used to spread misinformation, fake news, fake reviews and to mimic certain authors and figures. To this end, there have been a slew of methods proposed to detect machine-generated text. Most of these methods need access to the logits of the target model or need the ability to sample from the target. One such black-box detection method relies on the observation that generated text is locally optimal under the likelihood function of the generator, while human-written text is not. We find that overall, smaller and partially-trained models are better universal text detectors: they can more precisely detect text generated from both small and larger models. Interestingly, we find that whether the detector and generator were trained on the same data is not critically important to the detection success. For instance the OPT-125M model has an AUC of 0.81 in detecting ChatGPT generations, whereas a larger model from the GPT family, GPTJ-6B, has AUC of 0.45.

Key facts. Cited by 35 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 May 2023.

Builds on

26 of 37 references.

References · 26

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  2. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  3. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
  4. 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
  5. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
  6. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  7. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
  8. 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 671
  9. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
  10. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
  11. 2020BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERTcited by 491
  12. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
14 more
  1. 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 424
  2. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
  3. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  4. 2022Quantifying Privacy Risks of Masked Language Models Using Membership Inference Attackscited by 175
  5. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 166
  6. 2020Contextualized Perturbation for Textual Adversarial Attackcited by 136
  7. 2020Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hidingcited by 130
  8. 2021TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generationcited by 120
  9. 2019Real or Fake? Learning to Discriminate Machine from Human Generated Textcited by 99
  10. 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 93
  11. 2019Neural Linguistic Steganographycited by 78
  12. 2022Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Textcited by 63
  13. 2017Generating Steganographic Text with LSTMscited by 44
  14. 2023Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single Questioncited by 26

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 11; 2024: 19; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

35 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Membership Inference Attacks against Language Models via Neighbourhood Comparisoncited by 258
  2. 2023Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected?cited by 177
  3. 2023DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Textcited by 129
  4. 2023A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Contentcited by 71
  5. 2023An Unforgeable Publicly Verifiable Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 65
  6. 2024Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA Rewritingcited by 52
  7. 2023Large Language Models can be Guided to Evade AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 44
  8. 2024What is the Role of Small Models in the LLM Era: A Surveycited by 41
  9. 2024GumbelSoft: Diversified Language Model Watermarking via the GumbelMax-trickcited by 37
  10. 2024Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifiercited by 34
  11. 2023Towards Possibilities & Impossibilities of AI-generated Text Detection: A Surveycited by 28
  12. 2024Between Lines of Code: Unraveling the Distinct Patterns of Machine and Human Programmerscited by 27
23 more
  1. 2024Humanizing Machine-Generated Content: Evading AI-Text Detection through Adversarial Attackcited by 27
  2. 2023From Text to Source: Results in Detecting Large Language Model-Generated Contentcited by 26
  3. 2024Stumbling Blocks: Stress Testing the Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detectors Under Attackscited by 26
  4. 2023Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Codescited by 24
  5. 2024Glimpse: Enabling White-Box Methods to Use Proprietary Models for Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detectioncited by 14
  6. 2024EAGLE: A Domain Generalization Framework for AI-generated Text Detectioncited by 13
  7. 2024DALD: Improving Logits-based Detector without Logits from Black-box LLMscited by 13
  8. 2023On the Zero-Shot Generalization of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 11
  9. 2024Does DetectGPT Fully Utilize Perturbation? Bridging Selective Perturbation to Fine-tuned Contrastive Learning Detector would be Bettercited by 11
  10. 2024Duwak: Dual Watermarks in Large Language Modelscited by 11
  11. 2024Hidding the Ghostwriters: An Adversarial Evaluation of AI-Generated Student Essay Detectioncited by 10
  12. 2025A Comprehensive Analysis of Large Language Model Outputs: Similarity, Diversity, and Biascited by 10
  13. 2023Assaying on the Robustness of Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 8
  14. 2025Human Texts Are Outliers: Detecting LLM-generated Texts via Out-of-distribution Detectioncited by 8
  15. 2024The Impact of Prompts on Zero-Shot Detection of AI-Generated Textcited by 6
  16. 2024Survey on Plagiarism Detection in Large Language Models: The Impact of ChatGPT and Gemini on Academic Integritycited by 5
  17. 2024LSHBloom: Memory-efficient, Extreme-scale Document Deduplicationcited by 5
  18. 2025Synthetic Data Can Mislead Evaluations: Membership Inference as Machine Text Detectioncited by 3
  19. 2024Navigating the Shadows: Unveiling Effective Disturbances for Modern AI Content Detectorscited by 2
  20. 2024An Evaluation of Explanation Methods for Black-Box Detectors of Machine-Generated Textcited by 2
  21. 2024Investigating the Influence of Prompt-Specific Shortcuts in AI Generated Text Detectioncited by 1
  22. 2025DEER: Disentangled Mixture of Experts with Instance-Adaptive Routing for Generalizable Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 0
  23. 2026Hidden Human-Like Nature of Machine-Generated Texts: Theory and Detection Enhancementcited by 0