mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Deciphering Textual Authenticity: A Generalized Strategy through the Lens of Large Language Semantics for Detecting Human vs. Machine-Generated Text

arXiv 2401.09407 ↗First posted 17 Jan 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

With the recent proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs), there has been an increasing demand for tools to detect machine-generated text. The effective detection of machine-generated text face two pertinent problems: First, they are severely limited in generalizing against real-world scenarios, where machine-generated text is produced by a variety of generators, including but not limited to GPT-4 and Dolly, and spans diverse domains, ranging from academic manuscripts to social media posts. Second, existing detection methodologies treat texts produced by LLMs through a restrictive binary classification lens, neglecting the nuanced diversity of artifacts generated by different LLMs. In this work, we undertake a systematic study on the detection of machine-generated text in real-world scenarios. We first study the effectiveness of state-of-the-art approaches and find that they are severely limited against text produced by diverse generators and domains in the real world. Furthermore, t-SNE visualizations of the embeddings from a pretrained LLM's encoder show that they cannot reliably distinguish between human and machine-generated text. Based on our findings, we introduce a novel system, T5LLMCipher, for detecting machine-generated text using a pretrained T5 encoder combined with LLM embedding sub-clustering to address the text produced by diverse generators and domains in the real world. We evaluate our approach across 9 machine-generated text systems and 9 domains and find that our approach provides state-of-the-art generalization ability, with an average increase in F1 score on machine-generated text of 19.6% on unseen generators and domains compared to the top performing existing approaches and correctly attributes the generator of text with an accuracy of 93.6%.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jan 2024.

Builds on

32 of 58 references.

References · 32

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  3. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  4. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  5. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  6. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,898
  7. 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,973
  8. 2022GPT-NeoX-20B: An Open-Source Autoregressive Language Modelcited by 711
  9. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  10. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
  11. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  12. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
20 more
  1. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  2. 2022Text and Code Embeddings by Contrastive Pre-Trainingcited by 358
  3. 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 341
  4. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
  5. 2023PromptRobust: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models on Adversarial Promptscited by 218
  6. 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
  7. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 175
  8. 2022Distilling Reasoning Capabilities into Smaller Language Modelscited by 155
  9. 2023M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 118
  10. 2020TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweetscited by 117
  11. 2019Do Massively Pretrained Language Models Make Better Storytellers?cited by 90
  12. 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 90
  13. 2022Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methodscited by 75
  14. 2021Artificial Text Detection via Examining the Topology of Attention Mapscited by 49
  15. 2023GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Contentcited by 40
  16. 2022Deepfake Text Detection: Limitations and Opportunitiescited by 37
  17. 2023The Looming Threat of Fake and LLM-generated LinkedIn Profiles: Challenges and Opportunities for Detection and Preventioncited by 18
  18. 2016CIFAR-10: KNN-based Ensemble of Classifierscited by 16
  19. 2023ANALOGICAL -- A Novel Benchmark for Long Text Analogy Evaluation in Large Language Modelscited by 12
  20. 2022LAMBRETTA: Learning to Rank for Twitter Soft Moderationcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 3.

5 papers.