mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How Sampling Affects the Detectability of Machine-written texts: A Comprehensive Study

arXiv 2510.13681 ↗First posted 15 Oct 2025cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) are ever more common and often indistinguishable from human-written content, research on automatic text detection has attracted growing attention. Many recent detectors report near-perfect accuracy, often boasting AUROC scores above 99%. However, these claims typically assume fixed generation settings, leaving open the question of how robust such systems are to changes in decoding strategies. In this work, we systematically examine how sampling-based decoding impacts detectability, with a focus on how subtle variations in a model's (sub)word-level distribution affect detection performance. We find that even minor adjustments to decoding parameters - such as temperature, top-p, or nucleus sampling - can severely impair detector accuracy, with AUROC dropping from near-perfect levels to 1% in some settings. Our findings expose critical blind spots in current detection methods and emphasize the need for more comprehensive evaluation protocols. To facilitate future research, we release a large-scale dataset encompassing 37 decoding configurations, along with our code and evaluation framework https://github.com/BaggerOfWords/Sampling-and-Detection

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 46 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Oct 2025.

Builds on

46 of 63 references.

References · 46

  1. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  2. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
  3. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
  4. 2019CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generationcited by 762
  5. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
  6. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
  7. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
  8. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
  9. 2023Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defensecited by 429
  10. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  11. 2023Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvaturecited by 287
  12. 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 263
34 more
  1. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  2. 2019Sparse Sequence-to-Sequence Modelscited by 170
  3. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 163
  4. 2023MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wildcited by 132
  5. 2023DNA-GPT: Divergent N-Gram Analysis for Training-Free Detection of GPT-Generated Textcited by 129
  6. 2023M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 121
  7. 2020TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweetscited by 117
  8. 2020Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language Generationcited by 96
  9. 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 85
  10. 2021Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexitycited by 78
  11. 2022Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Textcited by 63
  12. 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 59
  13. 2024Raidar: geneRative AI Detection viA Rewritingcited by 52
  14. 2023It's MBR All the Way Down: Modern Generation Techniques Through the Lens of Minimum Bayes Riskcited by 51
  15. 2023Large Language Models can be Guided to Evade AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 44
  16. 2023Origin Tracing and Detecting of LLMscited by 40
  17. 2021PPL-MCTS: Constrained Textual Generation Through Discriminator-Guided MCTS Decodingcited by 33
  18. 2023On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writingcited by 27
  19. 2023From Text to Source: Results in Detecting Large Language Model-Generated Contentcited by 26
  20. 2024Stumbling Blocks: Stress Testing the Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detectors Under Attackscited by 26
  21. 2024Decoding Decoded: Understanding Hyperparameter Effects in Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 26
  22. 2024What Does the Bot Say? Opportunities and Risks of Large Language Models in Social Media Bot Detectioncited by 25
  23. 2024LLM-DetectAIve: a Tool for Fine-Grained Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 25
  24. 2020Sparse Text Generationcited by 24
  25. 2023How Reliable Are AI-Generated-Text Detectors? An Assessment Framework Using Evasive Soft Promptscited by 23
  26. 2024Authorship Obfuscation in Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 19
  27. 2022A Benchmark Corpus for the Detection of Automatically Generated Text in Academic Publicationscited by 18
  28. 2023On the Efficacy of Sampling Adapterscited by 17
  29. 2024Glimpse: Enabling White-Box Methods to Use Proprietary Models for Zero-Shot LLM-Generated Text Detectioncited by 14
  30. 2024Are AI Detectors Good Enough? A Survey on Quality of Datasets With Machine-Generated Textscited by 10
  31. 2023How You Prompt Matters! Even Task-Oriented Constraints in Instructions Affect LLM-Generated Text Detectioncited by 8
  32. 2025GenAI Content Detection Task 3: Cross-Domain Machine-Generated Text Detection Challengecited by 7
  33. 2023Efficient Black-Box Adversarial Attacks on Neural Text Detectorscited by 3
  34. 2024MOSAIC: Multiple Observers Spotting AI Contentcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

4 papers.