Navigating the Shadows: Unveiling Effective Disturbances for Modern AI Content Detectors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
With the launch of ChatGPT, large language models (LLMs) have attracted global attention. In the realm of article writing, LLMs have witnessed extensive utilization, giving rise to concerns related to intellectual property protection, personal privacy, and academic integrity. In response, AI-text detection has emerged to distinguish between human and machine-generated content. However, recent research indicates that these detection systems often lack robustness and struggle to effectively differentiate perturbed texts. Currently, there is a lack of systematic evaluations regarding detection performance in real-world applications, and a comprehensive examination of perturbation techniques and detector robustness is also absent. To bridge this gap, our work simulates real-world scenarios in both informal and professional writing, exploring the out-of-the-box performance of current detectors. Additionally, we have constructed 12 black-box text perturbation methods to assess the robustness of current detection models across various perturbation granularities. Furthermore, through adversarial learning experiments, we investigate the impact of perturbation data augmentation on the robustness of AI-text detectors. We have released our code and data at https://github.com/zhouying20/ai-text-detector-evaluation.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2024.
Builds on
26 of 51 references.
References · 26
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
- 2023PaLM 2 Technical Reportcited by 1,154
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
14 more
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 372
- 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
- 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 187
- 2023Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Taskscited by 168
- 2023A Robust Semantics-based Watermark for Large Language Model against Paraphrasingcited by 71
- 2023SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 55
- 2023Large Language Models can be Guided to Evade AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 43
- 2023Smaller Language Models are Better Black-box Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 35
- 2023How Reliable Are AI-Generated-Text Detectors? An Assessment Framework Using Evasive Soft Promptscited by 23
- 2023A Ship of Theseus: Curious Cases of Paraphrasing in LLM-Generated Textscited by 23
- 2024Authorship Obfuscation in Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 19
- 2023Efficient Detection of LLM-generated Texts with a Bayesian Surrogate Modelcited by 18
- 2023Evade ChatGPT Detectors via A Single Spacecited by 18
- 2023Mutation-Based Adversarial Attacks on Neural Text Detectorscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.