# DUPE: Detection Undermining via Prompt Engineering for Deepfake Text

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11408 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.11408/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Watermarking generated content and models, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 7 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Apr 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Watermarking generated content and models](https://mlsanity.com/safety/watermarking-generated-content-and-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Generalizing to Unseen Domains: A Survey on Domain Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03097/) (2021)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [A Watermark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.10226/) (2023)
- [Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11156/) (2023)
- [On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04634/) (2023)
- [GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.02819/) (2023)
- [On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.04736/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.29539/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly commonplace, concern about distinguishing between human and AI text increases as well. The growing power of these models is of particular concern to teachers, who may worry that students will use LLMs to write school assignments. Facing a technology with which they are unfamiliar, teachers may turn to publicly-available AI text detectors. Yet the accuracy of many of these detectors has not been thoroughly verified, posing potential harm to students who are falsely accused of academic dishonesty. In this paper, we evaluate three different AI text detectors-Kirchenbauer et al. watermarks, ZeroGPT, and GPTZero-against human and AI-generated essays. We find that watermarking results in a high false positive rate, and that ZeroGPT has both high false positive and false negative rates. Further, we are able to significantly increase the false negative rate of all detectors by using ChatGPT 3.5 to paraphrase the original AI-generated texts, thereby effectively bypassing the detectors.