Detection Avoidance Techniques for Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The increasing popularity of large language models has not only led to widespread use but has also brought various risks, including the potential for systematically spreading fake news. Consequently, the development of classification systems such as DetectGPT has become vital. These detectors are vulnerable to evasion techniques, as demonstrated in an experimental series: Systematic changes of the generative models' temperature proofed shallow learning-detectors to be the least reliable. Fine-tuning the generative model via reinforcement learning circumvented BERT-based-detectors. Finally, rephrasing led to a >90% evasion of zero-shot-detectors like DetectGPT, although texts stayed highly similar to the original. A comparison with existing work highlights the better performance of the presented methods. Possible implications for society and further research are discussed.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Mar 2025.
Builds on
34 of 61 references.
References · 34
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,157
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,124
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,928
- 2020MiniLM: Deep Self-Attention Distillation for Task-Agnostic Compression of Pre-Trained Transformerscited by 1,414
- 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,219
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
- 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
- 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 952
22 more
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023Symbolic Discovery of Optimization Algorithmscited by 423
- 2021FNet: Mixing Tokens with Fourier Transformscited by 343
- 2024Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speakingcited by 292
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
- 2024V-STaR: Training Verifiers for Self-Taught Reasonerscited by 214
- 2024Agent Q: Advanced Reasoning and Learning for Autonomous AI Agentscited by 201
- 2022Locally Typical Samplingcited by 108
- 2022Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawedcited by 104
- 2023A Survey of Text Watermarking in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 102
- 2020A Theoretical Analysis of the Repetition Problem in Text Generationcited by 83
- 2020RoFT: A Tool for Evaluating Human Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 36
- 2024ChatGPT "contamination": estimating the prevalence of LLMs in the scholarly literaturecited by 25
- 2024Watermarking Techniques for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 20
- 2024Spotting AI's Touch: Identifying LLM-Paraphrased Spans in Textcited by 16
- 2020Reverse Engineering Configurations of Neural Text Generation Modelscited by 14
- 2023Stochastic Parrots Looking for Stochastic Parrots: LLMs are Easy to Fine-Tune and Hard to Detect with other LLMscited by 8
- 2023How well can machine-generated texts be identified and can language models be trained to avoid identification?cited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.