# MOSAIC: Multiple Observers Spotting AI Content

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07615 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07615/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 33 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 33)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02116/) (2019)
- [The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09751/) (2019)
- [Hierarchical Neural Story Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.04833/) (2018)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [Defending Against Neural Fake News](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.12616/) (2019)
- [The Falcon Series of Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16867/) (2023)
- [GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04043/) (2019)
- [How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07597/) (2023)
- [Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05130/) (2023)
- [Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12070/) (2024)
- [Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.00650/) (2019)
- [Tower: An Open Multilingual Large Language Model for Translation-Related Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17733/) (2024)
- [RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07940/) (2024)
- [DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17359/) (2023)
- [Truncation Sampling as Language Model Desmoothing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.15191/) (2022)
- [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)
- [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)
- [Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.03697/) (2023)
- [SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08903/) (2023)
- [Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA Rewriting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12970/) (2024)
- [Origin Tracing and Detecting of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.14072/) (2023)
- [HowkGPT: Investigating the Detection of ChatGPT-generated University Student Homework through Context-Aware Perplexity Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18226/) (2023)
- [On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05524/) (2023)
- [From Text to Source: Results in Detecting Large Language Model-Generated Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13322/) (2023)
- [Stumbling Blocks: Stress Testing the Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detectors Under Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11638/) (2024)
- [LLM-DetectAIve: a Tool for Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04284/) (2024)
- [A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.02013/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [How Sampling Affects the Detectability of Machine-written texts: A Comprehensive Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13681/) (2025)
- [DMAP: A Distribution Map for Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11871/) (2026)
- [How Much Were You Told? Measuring External Information in Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.28041/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The dissemination of Large Language Models (LLMs), trained at scale, and endowed with powerful text-generating abilities, has made it easier for all to produce harmful, toxic, faked or forged content. In response, various proposals have been made to automatically discriminate artificially generated from human-written texts, typically framing the problem as a binary classification problem. Early approaches evaluate an input document with a well-chosen detector LLM, assuming that low-perplexity scores reliably signal machine-made content. More recent systems instead consider two LLMs and compare their probability distributions over the document to further discriminate when perplexity alone cannot. However, using a fixed pair of models can induce brittleness in performance. We extend these approaches to the ensembling of several LLMs and derive a new, theoretically grounded approach to combine their respective strengths. Our experiments, conducted with various generator LLMs, indicate that this approach effectively leverages the strengths of each model, resulting in robust detection performance across multiple domains. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/BaggerOfWords/MOSAIC .