mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Practical Examination of AI-Generated Text Detectors for Large Language Models

arXiv 2412.05139 ↗First posted 6 Dec 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The proliferation of large language models has raised growing concerns about their misuse, particularly in cases where AI-generated text is falsely attributed to human authors. Machine-generated content detectors claim to effectively identify such text under various conditions and from any language model. This paper critically evaluates these claims by assessing several popular detectors (RADAR, Wild, T5Sentinel, Fast-DetectGPT, PHD, LogRank, Binoculars) on a range of domains, datasets, and models that these detectors have not previously encountered. We employ various prompting strategies to simulate practical adversarial attacks, demonstrating that even moderate efforts can significantly evade detection. We emphasize the importance of the true positive rate at a specific false positive rate (TPR@FPR) metric and demonstrate that these detectors perform poorly in certain settings, with [email protected] as low as 0%. Our findings suggest that both trained and zero-shot detectors struggle to maintain high sensitivity while achieving a reasonable true positive rate.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 50 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2024.

Builds on

50 of 67 references.

References · 50

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  3. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  4. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  5. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
  6. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
  7. 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,330
  8. 2024Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phonecited by 1,917
  9. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,317
  10. 2019PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answeringcited by 1,288
  11. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
  12. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
38 more
  1. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,049
  2. 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 902
  3. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  4. 2019ELI5: Long Form Question Answeringcited by 575
  5. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
  6. 2019SAMSum Corpus: A Human-annotated Dialogue Dataset for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 535
  7. 2023The Falcon Series of Open Language Modelscited by 535
  8. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
  9. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
  10. 2018A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documentscited by 478
  11. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
  12. 2016A Corpus and Evaluation Framework for Deeper Understanding of Commonsense Storiescited by 417
  13. 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
  14. 2023Provable Robust Watermarking for AI-Generated Textcited by 299
  15. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
  16. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  17. 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 190
  18. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 178
  19. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 166
  20. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 163
  21. 2023Who Wrote this Code? Watermarking for Code Generationcited by 141
  22. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 136
  23. 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 132
  24. 2023DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Textcited by 129
  25. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 112
  26. 2016Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussionscited by 110
  27. 2023A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Contentcited by 71
  28. 2023GPT-who: An Information Density-based Machine-Generated Text Detectorcited by 40
  29. 2023Towards Possibilities & Impossibilities of AI-generated Text Detection: A Surveycited by 28
  30. 2023Token Prediction as Implicit Classification to Identify LLM-Generated Textcited by 27
  31. 2024Stumbling Blocks: Stress Testing the Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detectors Under Attackscited by 26
  32. 2024What Does the Bot Say? Opportunities and Risks of Large Language Models in Social Media Bot Detectioncited by 25
  33. 2023How Reliable Are AI-Generated-Text Detectors? An Assessment Framework Using Evasive Soft Promptscited by 23
  34. 2024Detecting AI-Generated Text: Factors Influencing Detectability with Current Methodscited by 23
  35. 2021MTG: A Benchmark Suite for Multilingual Text Generationcited by 22
  36. 2021MFAQ: a Multilingual FAQ Datasetcited by 17
  37. 2021Learning to Reason for Text Generation from Scientific Tablescited by 14
  38. 2023Counter Turing Test CT^2: AI-Generated Text Detection is Not as Easy as You May Think -- Introducing AI Detectability Indexcited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

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

11 papers.