GradEscape: A Gradient-Based Evader Against AI-Generated Text Detectors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In this paper, we introduce GradEscape, the first gradient-based evader designed to attack AI-generated text (AIGT) detectors. GradEscape overcomes the undifferentiable computation problem, caused by the discrete nature of text, by introducing a novel approach to construct weighted embeddings for the detector input. It then updates the evader model parameters using feedback from victim detectors, achieving high attack success with minimal text modification. To address the issue of tokenizer mismatch between the evader and the detector, we introduce a warm-started evader method, enabling GradEscape to adapt to detectors across any language model architecture. Moreover, we employ novel tokenizer inference and model extraction techniques, facilitating effective evasion even in query-only access. We evaluate GradEscape on four datasets and three widely-used language models, benchmarking it against four state-of-the-art AIGT evaders. Experimental results demonstrate that GradEscape outperforms existing evaders in various scenarios, including with an 11B paraphrase model, while utilizing only 139M parameters. We have successfully applied GradEscape to two real-world commercial AIGT detectors. Our analysis reveals that the primary vulnerability stems from disparity in text expression styles within the training data. We also propose a potential defense strategy to mitigate the threat of AIGT evaders. We open-source our GradEscape for developing more robust AIGT detectors.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 76 of its 108 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2025.
Builds on
76 of 108 references.
References · 76
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 3,096
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
38 more
- 2019Megatron-LM: Training Multi-Billion Parameter Language Models Using Model Parallelismcited by 1,868
- 2020mT5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformercited by 1,818
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2023PaLM 2 Technical Reportcited by 1,162
- 2015Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Bookscited by 1,043
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
- 2023Instruction Tuning with GPT-4cited by 686
- 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 671
- 2016Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIscited by 619
- 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
- 2018Universal Sentence Encodercited by 489
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
- 2023RRHF: Rank Responses to Align Language Models with Human Feedback without tearscited by 463
- 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
- 2018TextBugger: Generating Adversarial Text Against Real-world Applicationscited by 381
- 2018Knockoff Nets: Stealing Functionality of Black-Box Modelscited by 292
- 2023Preference Ranking Optimization for Human Alignmentcited by 285
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
- 2018Generating Adversarial Examples with Adversarial Networkscited by 258
- 2021Gradient-based Adversarial Attacks against Text Transformerscited by 234
- 2023Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part I: PPOcited by 229
- 2023RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial Learningcited by 190
- 2020Implementation Matters in Deep Policy Gradients: A Case Study on PPO and TRPOcited by 186
- 2019Leveraging Pre-trained Checkpoints for Sequence Generation Taskscited by 182
- 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 178
- 2023Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected?cited by 177
- 2020Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hidingcited by 130
- 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 93
- 2020OpenAttack: An Open-source Textual Adversarial Attack Toolkitcited by 84
- 2021Protecting Intellectual Property of Language Generation APIs with Lexical Watermarkcited by 84
- 2018Adversarial vulnerability for any classifiercited by 78
- 2023Publicly-Detectable Watermarking for Language Modelscited by 76
- 2023Language Model Self-improvement by Reinforcement Learning Contemplationcited by 75
- 2021Spinning Language Models: Risks of Propaganda-As-A-Service and Countermeasurescited by 73
50 most cited of 76 All 76 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.