mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

GenAI Detection Tools, Adversarial Techniques and Implications for Inclusivity in Higher Education

arXiv 2403.19148 ↗First posted 28 Mar 2024cs.CY cs.AIcited by 14

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This study investigates the efficacy of six major Generative AI (GenAI) text detectors when confronted with machine-generated content that has been modified using techniques designed to evade detection by these tools (n=805). The results demonstrate that the detectors' already low accuracy rates (39.5%) show major reductions in accuracy (17.4%) when faced with manipulated content, with some techniques proving more effective than others in evading detection. The accuracy limitations and the potential for false accusations demonstrate that these tools cannot currently be recommended for determining whether violations of academic integrity have occurred, underscoring the challenges educators face in maintaining inclusive and fair assessment practices. However, they may have a role in supporting student learning and maintaining academic integrity when used in a non-punitive manner. These results underscore the need for a combined approach to addressing the challenges posed by GenAI in academia to promote the responsible and equitable use of these emerging technologies. The study concludes that the current limitations of AI text detectors require a critical approach for any possible implementation in HE and highlight possible alternatives to AI assessment strategies.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Mar 2024.

Builds on

18 of 71 references.

References · 18

  1. 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
  2. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  3. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
  4. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
  5. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
  6. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  7. 2023Reasoning or Reciting? Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Through Counterfactual Taskscited by 246
  8. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 178
  9. 2022PromptChainer: Chaining Large Language Model Prompts through Visual Programmingcited by 134
  10. 2023Generative AIcited by 120
  11. 2023LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Modelscited by 101
  12. 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Textcited by 90
6 more
  1. 2023A Comprehensive AI Policy Education Framework for University Teaching and Learningcited by 34
  2. 2023Game of Tones: Faculty detection of GPT-4 generated content in university assessmentscited by 16
  3. 2023The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessmentcited by 12
  4. 2023ChatGPT v Bard v Bing v Claude 2 v Aria v human-expert. How good are AI chatbots at scientific writing?cited by 6
  5. 2024The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) in action: A pilot implementation of GenAI supported assessment- A Preprintcited by 5
  6. 2021Adversarial Attacks and Defenses for Social Network Text Processing Applications: Techniques, Challenges and Future Research Directionscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 6; 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

14 papers.

Sort:

By area: