When Personalization Tricks Detectors: The Feature-Inversion Trap in Machine-Generated Text Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) have grown more powerful in language generation, producing fluent text and even imitating personal style. Yet, this ability also heightens the risk of identity impersonation. To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has examined personalized machine-generated text (MGT) detection. In this paper, we introduce dataset, the first benchmark for evaluating detector robustness in personalized settings, built from literary and blog texts paired with their LLM-generated imitations. Our experimental results demonstrate large performance gaps across detectors in personalized settings: some state-of-the-art models suffer significant drops. We attribute this limitation to the textitfeature-inversion trap, where features that are discriminative in general domains become inverted and misleading when applied to personalized text. Based on this finding, we propose method, a simple and reliable way to predict detector performance changes in personalized settings. method identifies latent directions corresponding to inverted features and constructs probe datasets that differ primarily along these features to evaluate detector dependence. Our experiments show that method can accurately predict both the direction and the magnitude of post-transfer changes, showing 85% correlation with the actual performance gaps. We hope that this work will encourage further research on personalized text detection.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 39 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2025.
Builds on
39 of 60 references.
References · 39
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
- 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 950
- 2022Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimizationcited by 598
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 278
- 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 260
27 more
- 2024Continual Learning of Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 228
- 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
- 2024Two Tales of Persona in LLMs: A Survey of Role-Playing and Personalizationcited by 203
- 2023Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Textcited by 189
- 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
- 2024CharacterEval: A Chinese Benchmark for Role-Playing Conversational Agent Evaluationcited by 139
- 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
- 2023Pearl: Personalizing Large Language Model Writing Assistants with Generation-Calibrated Retrieverscited by 91
- 2018A standardized Project Gutenberg corpus for statistical analysis of natural language and quantitative linguisticscited by 64
- 2023Multiscale Positive-Unlabeled Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 59
- 2024DeTeCtive: Detecting AI-generated Text via Multi-Level Contrastive Learningcited by 52
- 2025Personalized Generation In Large Model Era: A Surveycited by 45
- 2024Personalized Large Language Modelscited by 44
- 2025People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated textcited by 39
- 2025On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspectivecited by 39
- 2020Fundamental Limits and Tradeoffs in Invariant Representation Learningcited by 38
- 2024Training-free LLM-generated Text Detection by Mining Token Probability Sequencescited by 33
- 2023Rayleigh Quotient Graph Neural Networks for Graph-level Anomaly Detectioncited by 19
- 2018Persistent Homology and the Upper Box Dimensioncited by 15
- 2024MultiSocial: Multilingual Benchmark of Machine-Generated Text Detection of Social-Media Textscited by 14
- 2025Beyond Profile: From Surface-Level Facts to Deep Persona Simulation in LLMscited by 9
- 2025WETBench: A Benchmark for Detecting Task-Specific Machine-Generated Text on Wikipediacited by 6
- 2024Large Language Models can impersonate politicians and other public figurescited by 5
- 2024Adaptive Self-Supervised Learning Strategies for Dynamic On-Device LLM Personalizationcited by 5
- 2025Evaluate Bias without Manual Test Sets: A Concept Representation Perspective for LLMscited by 5
- 2024Using Machine Learning to Distinguish Human-written from Machine-generated Creative Fictioncited by 4
- 2025Short-PHD: Detecting Short LLM-generated Text with Topological Data Analysis After Off-topic Content Insertioncited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.