# Unmasking the Imposters: How Censorship and Domain Adaptation Affect the Detection of Machine-Generated Tweets

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17967 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17967/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 27 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00027/) (2020)
- [DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09543/) (2021)
- [Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14233/) (2023)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13408/) (2023)
- [TweetEval: Unified Benchmark and Comparative Evaluation for Tweet Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.12421/) (2020)
- [Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11156/) (2023)
- [BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English Tweets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.10200/) (2020)
- [RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03838/) (2023)
- [Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01314/) (2020)
- [M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14902/) (2023)
- [TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.00036/) (2020)
- [Real or Fake? Learning to Discriminate Machine from Human Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.03351/) (2019)
- [ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13852/) (2023)
- [The Limitations of Stylometry for Detecting Machine-Generated Fake News](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09805/) (2019)
- [Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.03697/) (2023)
- [M4GT-Bench: Evaluation Benchmark for Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11175/) (2024)
- [CHEAT: A Large-scale Dataset for Detecting ChatGPT-writtEn AbsTracts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12008/) (2023)
- [Generative AI Text Classification using Ensemble LLM Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07755/) (2023)
- [Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single Question](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06424/) (2023)
- [How Reliable Are AI-Generated-Text Detectors? An Assessment Framework Using Evasive Soft Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05095/) (2023)
- [Adaptive Ensembles of Fine-Tuned Transformers for LLM-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13335/) (2024)
- [Detecting ChatGPT: A Survey of the State of Detecting ChatGPT-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07689/) (2023)
- [Investigating Wit, Creativity, and Detectability of Large Language Models in Domain-Specific Writing Style Adaptation of Reddit's Showerthoughts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01660/) (2024)
- [Stacking the Odds: Transformer-Based Ensemble for AI-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18906/) (2023)

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

- [Orthographic Constraint Satisfaction and Human Difficulty Alignment in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21086/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has significantly improved the generation of fluent and convincing text, raising concerns about their potential misuse on social media platforms. We present a comprehensive methodology for creating nine Twitter datasets to examine the generative capabilities of four prominent LLMs: Llama 3, Mistral, Qwen2, and GPT4o. These datasets encompass four censored and five uncensored model configurations, including 7B and 8B parameter base-instruction models of the three open-source LLMs. Additionally, we perform a data quality analysis to assess the characteristics of textual outputs from human, "censored," and "uncensored" models, employing semantic meaning, lexical richness, structural patterns, content characteristics, and detector performance metrics to identify differences and similarities. Our evaluation demonstrates that "uncensored" models significantly undermine the effectiveness of automated detection methods. This study addresses a critical gap by exploring smaller open-source models and the ramifications of "uncensoring," providing valuable insights into how domain adaptation and content moderation strategies influence both the detectability and structural characteristics of machine-generated text.