mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

RAFT: Realistic Attacks to Fool Text Detectors

arXiv 2410.03658 ↗First posted 4 Oct 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable fluency across various tasks. However, their unethical applications, such as disseminating disinformation, have become a growing concern. Although recent works have proposed a number of LLM detection methods, their robustness and reliability remain unclear. In this paper, we present RAFT: a grammar error-free black-box attack against existing LLM detectors. In contrast to previous attacks for language models, our method exploits the transferability of LLM embeddings at the word-level while preserving the original text quality. We leverage an auxiliary embedding to greedily select candidate words to perturb against the target detector. Experiments reveal that our attack effectively compromises all detectors in the study across various domains by up to 99%, and are transferable across source models. Manual human evaluation studies show our attacks are realistic and indistinguishable from original human-written text. We also show that examples generated by RAFT can be used to train adversarially robust detectors. Our work shows that current LLM detectors are not adversarially robust, underscoring the urgent need for more resilient detection mechanisms.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2024.

Builds on

25 of 42 references.

References · 25

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  4. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  5. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,375
  6. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  7. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,512
  8. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,474
  9. 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,998
  10. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
  11. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,317
  12. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
13 more
  1. 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 671
  2. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
  3. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
  4. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
  5. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
  6. 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 424
  7. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
  8. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
  9. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  10. 2020Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hidingcited by 130
  11. 2024Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA Rewritingcited by 52
  12. 2022The Ethical Need for Watermarks in Machine-Generated Languagecited by 32
  13. 2024Revisiting Word Embeddings in the LLM Eracited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 4.

9 papers.