mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How You Prompt Matters! Even Task-Oriented Constraints in Instructions Affect LLM-Generated Text Detection

arXiv 2311.08369 ↗First posted 14 Nov 2023cs.CLcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

To combat the misuse of Large Language Models (LLMs), many recent studies have presented LLM-generated-text detectors with promising performance. When users instruct LLMs to generate texts, the instruction can include different constraints depending on the user's need. However, most recent studies do not cover such diverse instruction patterns when creating datasets for LLM detection. In this paper, we reveal that even task-oriented constraints -- constraints that would naturally be included in an instruction and are not related to detection-evasion -- cause existing powerful detectors to have a large variance in detection performance. We focus on student essay writing as a realistic domain and manually create task-oriented constraints based on several factors for essay quality. Our experiments show that the standard deviation (SD) of current detector performance on texts generated by an instruction with such a constraint is significantly larger (up to an SD of 14.4 F1-score) than that by generating texts multiple times or paraphrasing the instruction. We also observe an overall trend where the constraints can make LLM detection more challenging than without them. Finally, our analysis indicates that the high instruction-following ability of LLMs fosters the large impact of such constraints on detection performance.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2023.

Builds on

19 of 45 references.

References · 19

  1. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  2. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  3. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
  4. 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,077
  5. 2019How Can We Know What Language Models Know?cited by 959
  6. 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
  7. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  8. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
  9. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
  10. 2023Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarizationcited by 445
  11. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
  12. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
7 more
  1. 2023Prompting Large Language Model for Machine Translation: A Case Studycited by 250
  2. 2017Learning Discourse-level Diversity for Neural Dialog Models using Conditional Variational Autoencoderscited by 222
  3. 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 210
  4. 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 128
  5. 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 85
  6. 2023OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examplescited by 80
  7. 2023ArguGPT: evaluating, understanding and identifying argumentative essays generated by GPT modelscited by 42

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

8 papers.