mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

TempTest: Local Normalization Distortion and the Detection of Machine-generated Text

arXiv 2503.20421 ↗First posted 26 Mar 2025cs.CL cs.LG math.DScited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing methods for the zero-shot detection of machine-generated text are dominated by three statistical quantities: log-likelihood, log-rank, and entropy. As language models mimic the distribution of human text ever closer, this will limit our ability to build effective detection algorithms. To combat this, we introduce a method for detecting machine-generated text that is entirely agnostic of the generating language model. This is achieved by targeting a defect in the way that decoding strategies, such as temperature or top-k sampling, normalize conditional probability measures. This method can be rigorously theoretically justified, is easily explainable, and is conceptually distinct from existing methods for detecting machine-generated text. We evaluate our detector in the white and black box settings across various language models, datasets, and passage lengths. We also study the effect of paraphrasing attacks on our detector and the extent to which it is biased against non-native speakers. In each of these settings, the performance of our test is at least comparable to that of other state-of-the-art text detectors, and in some cases, we strongly outperform these baselines.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2025.

Builds on

27 of 35 references.

References · 27

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  3. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  4. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  5. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  6. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,464
  7. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  8. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
  9. 2019PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answeringcited by 1,271
  10. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
  11. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  12. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 667
15 more
  1. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  2. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 401
  3. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
  4. 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
  5. 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 175
  6. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
  7. 2018Language GANs Falling Shortcited by 97
  8. 2020Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language Generationcited by 94
  9. 2024Detecting Subtle Differences between Human and Model Languages Using Spectrum of Relative Likelihoodcited by 24
  10. 2024Detecting Machine-Generated Texts by Multi-Population Aware Optimization for Maximum Mean Discrepancycited by 20
  11. 2021Detecting Fake News Using Machine Learning : A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 19
  12. 2023On the Efficacy of Sampling Adapterscited by 17
  13. 2024Spotting AI's Touch: Identifying LLM-Paraphrased Spans in Textcited by 16
  14. 2023FACE: Evaluating Natural Language Generation with Fourier Analysis of Cross-Entropycited by 6
  15. 2024On Evaluating The Performance of Watermarked Machine-Generated Texts Under Adversarial Attackscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.