mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

How well can machine-generated texts be identified and can language models be trained to avoid identification?

arXiv 2310.16992 ↗First posted 25 Oct 2023cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

With the rise of generative pre-trained transformer models such as GPT-3, GPT-NeoX, or OPT, distinguishing human-generated texts from machine-generated ones has become important. We refined five separate language models to generate synthetic tweets, uncovering that shallow learning classification algorithms, like Naive Bayes, achieve detection accuracy between 0.6 and 0.8. Shallow learning classifiers differ from human-based detection, especially when using higher temperature values during text generation, resulting in a lower detection rate. Humans prioritize linguistic acceptability, which tends to be higher at lower temperature values. In contrast, transformer-based classifiers have an accuracy of 0.9 and above. We found that using a reinforcement learning approach to refine our generative models can successfully evade BERT-based classifiers with a detection accuracy of 0.15 or less.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Oct 2023.

Builds on

20 of 32 references.

References · 20

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  4. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,464
  5. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  6. 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,157
  7. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,124
  8. 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,219
  9. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
  10. 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 952
  11. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  12. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
8 more
  1. 2023Symbolic Discovery of Optimization Algorithmscited by 423
  2. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
  3. 2021FNet: Mixing Tokens with Fourier Transformscited by 343
  4. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  5. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
  6. 2022Locally Typical Samplingcited by 108
  7. 2020RoFT: A Tool for Evaluating Human Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 36
  8. 2020Reverse Engineering Configurations of Neural Text Generation Modelscited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.