mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

DALD: Improving Logits-based Detector without Logits from Black-box LLMs

arXiv 2406.05232 ↗First posted 7 Jun 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized text generation, producing outputs that closely mimic human writing. This blurring of lines between machine- and human-written text presents new challenges in distinguishing one from the other a task further complicated by the frequent updates and closed nature of leading proprietary LLMs. Traditional logits-based detection methods leverage surrogate models for identifying LLM-generated content when the exact logits are unavailable from black-box LLMs. However, these methods grapple with the misalignment between the distributions of the surrogate and the often undisclosed target models, leading to performance degradation, particularly with the introduction of new, closed-source models. Furthermore, while current methodologies are generally effective when the source model is identified, they falter in scenarios where the model version remains unknown, or the test set comprises outputs from various source models. To address these limitations, we present Distribution-Aligned LLMs Detection (DALD), an innovative framework that redefines the state-of-the-art performance in black-box text detection even without logits from source LLMs. DALD is designed to align the surrogate model's distribution with that of unknown target LLMs, ensuring enhanced detection capability and resilience against rapid model iterations with minimal training investment. By leveraging corpus samples from publicly accessible outputs of advanced models such as ChatGPT, GPT-4 and Claude-3, DALD fine-tunes surrogate models to synchronize with unknown source model distributions effectively.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2024.

Builds on

43 of 60 references.

References · 43

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  4. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  5. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
  6. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
  7. 2019PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answeringcited by 1,271
  8. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
  9. 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
  10. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  11. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
  12. 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 598
31 more
  1. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  2. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  3. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
  4. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
  5. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
  6. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
  7. 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
  8. 2023Undetectable Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 208
  9. 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
  10. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 175
  11. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
  12. 2023DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Textcited by 127
  13. 2020Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hidingcited by 121
  14. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
  15. 2023On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 88
  16. 2024Detecting Multimedia Generated by Large AI Models: A Surveycited by 73
  17. 2022Do Language Models Plagiarize?cited by 72
  18. 2023A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Contentcited by 70
  19. 2023SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 55
  20. 2019Generating Sentiment-Preserving Fake Online Reviews Using Neural Language Models and Their Human- and Machine-based Detectioncited by 50
  21. 2023GPT-Sentinel: Distinguishing Human and ChatGPT Generated Contentcited by 40
  22. 2024Few-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text using Style Representationscited by 40
  23. 2023Origin Tracing and Detecting of LLMscited by 39
  24. 2023Smaller Language Models are Better Black-box Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 35
  25. 2022Robust Fine-Tuning of Deep Neural Networks with Hessian-based Generalization Guaranteescited by 34
  26. 2023Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Codescited by 24
  27. 2024Ten Words Only Still Help: Improving Black-Box AI-Generated Text Detection via Proxy-Guided Efficient Re-Samplingcited by 20
  28. 2021Detecting Fake News Using Machine Learning : A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 19
  29. 2023Efficient Detection of LLM-generated Texts with a Bayesian Surrogate Modelcited by 18
  30. 2023G3Detector: General GPT-Generated Text Detectorcited by 17
  31. 2023AuthentiGPT: Detecting Machine-Generated Text via Black-Box Language Models Denoisingcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 5; 2026: 6.

12 papers.